MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001188600 · doi:10.2135/cropsci2011.06.0306

Evaluation of Grass and Legume Species as Perennial Ground Covers in Corn Production

2013· article· en· W2001188600 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
E. Scott Flynn, Kenneth J. Moore, Jeremy W. Singer, Kendall R. Lamkey

Bibliographic record

VenueCrop Science · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicTurfgrass Adaptation and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyAgronomyPerennial plantPoaceaePoa pratensisFestuca rubraFestucaIdeotypeCrop

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Corn ( Zea mays L.) stover has been identified as an important feedstock for biofuel production but its removal will likely increase soil erosion. To address this issue 35 species of grasses and legumes were evaluated as potential perennial ground covers (PGCs) in corn. Selection of species encompassed both C3 and C4 species with a wide range of developmental and morphological features. The objectives were to (i) identify species that could support a high level of corn production while requiring minimal management and (ii) identify morphological traits and growth habits of suitable entries as PGC. Over the 3‐yr study period species with slow growing and spreading habits were more conducive to corn production, even though these PGCs still caused an average 23% reduction in corn grain yield. Meadow fescue ( Festuca pratensis Huds.), sheep fescue ( Festuca ovina L.), Canada bluegrass ( Poa compressa L.), fowl bluegrass ( Poa palustris L.), and colonial bentgrass ( Agrostis capillaris L.) were identified as suitable PGC species. These species were generally shorter and slower to spread into the corn rows compared with other, more aggressive species. Based on these observations an ideotype for future PGC species should be low growing, clump forming, and shade tolerant and have delayed green‐up in the spring.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.234 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCrop ScienceSame topicTurfgrass Adaptation and ManagementFrench-language works237,207