Response of pea to rhizobia inoculation and starter nitrogen in Alberta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The introduction of new semileafless cultivars has contributed to the rapid expansion of pea (Pisum sativum) on the Canadian prairies. To determine the response of four new semi-leafless cultivars to rhizobia inoculation and starter fertilizer N, 58 field trials were conducted from 1995 to 1998 over a wide geographic region of Alberta. However, due to possible cross-contamination in 1995 and 1996 between inoculated and uninoculated treatments, average inoculation responses were only determined for the 22 trials conducted in 1997 and 1998. Rhizobia inoculation increased seed yield in 9 of the 22 trials by an average of 14%. The frequency of an inoculation benefit was only slightly higher (45% vs. 38%) on land with no history of legumes (n = 11) than on land that had grown a legume crop (n = 8), but the magnitude of the inoculation benefit was appreciably greater (19 vs. 5%) on land with no history of legumes. A significant interaction of inoculation with pea cultivar was observedin 6 of 22 trials: Majoret pea was the most responsive cultivar to inoculation while Baroness pea was the least responsive. Application of N fertilizer (20, 40 or 60 kg N ha –1 ) increased pea yield in 24% of the 58 trials conducted by an average of 9%. When spring soil NO 3 -N to 30cm was less than 20 kg N ha –1 , application of N fertilizer increased pea yield in 33% of the trials by an average of 11% (n = 12). The modest benefits of rhizobia inoculation or starter N fertilizer in most trials, despite appreciable deficits between spring soil NO 3 -N and accumulation of N by pea, was likely due to adequate nodulation of pea by indigenous rhizobia. Key words: Pisum sativum, nitrogen fertilizer, Rhizobium leguminosarum biovar viceae, rhizobia inoculation, seed protein
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".