Study of the Effects of Planting Date on the Phonological and Morphological Features, the Seed Yield, and the Components of the Yield of Oilseed Rape
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to study the effects of planting date on the phonological and morphological features, the seed yield, and the components of yield of the spring cultivars of open pollinating oilseed rape, an experiment was conducted in the form of split plots based on the completely randomized complete block design in four replications in the Baiekola Agronomic Research Station in the years 2009-2010. In this study, the five planting dates at: Sep 23, Oct 7, Oct 22, Nov 6, Nov 21 (the first, the fifteenth, and the thirtieth of the first month; and the fifteenth and the thirtieth of the second month of the fall, respectively) were the main factor, and the open pollinating cultivars of RW008911, RAS-3/99, and RGS003 were the subordinate factor. Results of the analysis of the variance on the basis of the split plot design showed that the means of the squares of the planting dates were significant for all the features studied, which indicates the major effect of the planting date on these features. The cultivars were also significantly different for most of the features studied, except for the percentage seed oil content. The interaction effects of the planting date and the cultivar were not significant for most of the features, which shows similar trends of change in these cultivars in response to different planting dates. In all of the cultivars, there was considerable deterioration in most of the features as a result of delays in planting dates. Among the main components of seed yield, the number of pods per plant had a positive and significant correlation with seed yield, which indicates these two features are affected in the same way by different planting dates. In general, the highest seed yield in this study (4003 Kg.h) was observed in the cultivar RW0089 when planted at the earliest planting date.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".