MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022323617 · doi:10.4141/p02-007

Seed yield and yield components of creeping bentgrass cultivars

2004· article· en· W2022323617 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Douglas J. Cattani, Samuel Smith, David Feindel, R. Gjuric

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicTurfgrass Adaptation and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCultivarYield (engineering)Agrostis stoloniferaAgronomyBiologyRange (aeronautics)Poaceae

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera L.) is a high-value turfgrass species that offers opportunities for western Canadian seed companies and producers. The objective of this study was to evaluate creeping bentgrass seed yield and the relationship between seedhead density and seed yield across a diverse range of cultivars. A series of four trials was established in Manitoba between 1992 and 1994 and included 18th Green, Cobra, Emerald, National, Penneagle, Pennlinks, Putter, Southshore, UM86-01 and UM86-02. Seed production and seedhead density were measured for 2–3 yr at each location. Additional yield component measurements included harvest index and thousand seed weight. The three cultivars developed within the region consistently showed high seed yield, seedhead density and harvest index and were numerically ranked in the top four for seed yield across all 11 location years. UM86-01 was in the highest grouping for seed yield across all harvests with yields ranging from 312 to 582 kg ha -1 . Seedhead density was strongly related to seed yield (highly significant in five of six comparisons) and therefore has the potential to be a valuable indicator of relative seed yield in creeping bentgrass. These results indicate that creeping bentgrass seed yield is variable across cultivars and that seedhead density can serve as a good predictor of seed production potential across cultivars. Key words: creeping bentgrass, harvest index, seedhead density, seed yield, yield components.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.583
Threshold uncertainty score0.982

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.177 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations6
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicTurfgrass Adaptation and ManagementFrench-language works237,207