MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2006193530 · doi:10.4141/cjps07078

Adaptation of alternative pulse and oilseed crops to the semiarid Canadian Prairie: Seed yield and water use efficiency

2008· article· en· W2006193530 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Sangamesh V. Angadi, B.G. McConkey, H. Cutforth, Perry R. Miller, D. Ulrich, F. Selles, K. M. Volkmar, Martin H. Entz, S.A. Brandt

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgronomic Practices and Intercropping Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaWestern Grains Research Foundation
KeywordsAgronomyCanolaSativumBiologyWater-use efficiencyCropWater useDrought toleranceCroppingField peaMonocultureCropping systemBrassica rapaBrassicaEnvironmental scienceIrrigationAgriculture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Diversification and intensification of the cropping systems in the traditional wheat-fallow area of the semiarid Canadian prairie is necessary to improve sustainability. Selection of alternate crops to include in cropping systems requires information on production risks with different climate regimes. To understand water use/yield relationships of alternate crops, three pulse crops (leguminous grain crops) [chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.), pea (Pisum sativum L.) and lentil (Lens culinaris Medik.)], three oilseed crops [canola (Brassica napus L. and B. rapa L.) and mustard (B. juncea L.)], and one cereal crop [wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)] were studied under varying water regimes: during 1996–1998 under well-watered, rainfed, imposed drought conditions, and in 2001 under rainfed conditions. Generally, the relative ranking between crops for water use was maintained across water regimes, such that the crops separated into three general groups of water users (high: wheat, B. napus, mustard; medium: chickpea, B. rapa, lentil; low: pea) with pea using an average of 34 mm and 13 mm less water than high- and medium-water-using crop groups, respectively. The exceptions included desi chickpea, which tended to use less water and B. rapa, which tended to use more water relative to the other crops as water use decreased. Generally, pea and wheat produced the most grain and biomass, had the highest water use efficiency, and had moderately high to high harvest indices. Wheat and pea are well adapted to variable rainfall amounts inherent in semiarid climates. Desi chickpea and lentil produce good grain yields under dry conditions, and grain yields relative to those of other crops can be increased by some drought stress, especially mid- to late-season stress. Therefore, because of their relatively good performance under water-stressed conditions, they are also well adapted to semiarid climates. Conversely, the Brassica oilseeds yielded relatively poorly compared with wheat and pulse crops under severe water-stressed conditions, so they are not as well adapted to the semiarid climate. In 2001, grain yield of wheat and pulses seeded on stubble was ≥30% of the yield on fallow, whereas stubble-seeded Brassica oilseeds yielded only about 10% of that on fallow. Compared with stubble seeding, production of Brassica oilseeds on fallow will decrease the risk of very low yields under drought. We found little indication that mustard was more drought tolerant than B. napus. Key words: Yield, water use efficiency, oilseeds, pulse, semiarid prairie

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)0.001
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 score0.108
Threshold uncertainty score0.217

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.169 · 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

Citations58
Published2008
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicAgronomic Practices and Intercropping SystemsFrench-language works237,207