MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022627010 · doi:10.4141/p04-115

Comparative forage yield, water use, and water use efficiency of alfalfa, crested wheatgrass and spring wheat in a semiarid climate in southern Saskatchewan

2005· article· en· W2022627010 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicTurfgrass Adaptation and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCore Research for Evolutional Science and Technology
KeywordsAgronomyAgropyron cristatumForageCultivarBiologyMedicago sativaSoil waterGrowing seasonIrrigationTurgor pressureWater-use efficiencyHorticultureEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum L. Gaertn.) and alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) are introduced forage species used for hay and grazing by cattle across western Canada. These species are well adapted to the semiarid region but their long-term responses to water stress have not been previously compared. Two alfalfa cultivars with contrasting root morphology (tap-rooted vs. creeping-rooted) and two crested wheatgrass (CWG) cultivars with different ploidy level (diploid vs. tetraploid) were compared with continuously cropped spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) for 6 yr at a semiarid location in western Canada. Soil water depletion, forage yield, water use efficiency, leaf water potential, osmotic potential and turgor were compared. There were no consistent differences between cultivars within alfalfa or CWG for variables measured. However, these two species exhibit different water stress response strategies. Leaf water potential of CWG was lower during midday stress period than that of alfalfa or wheat. Alfalfa apparently had greater capacity to osmotically adjust to avoid midday water stress and maintain higher turgor. Soil water use patterns changed as the stands aged. In the initial years of the trial, forage crops used soil water from upper layers of the profile. In later years, soil water was depleted down to 3 m by alfalfa and to 2 m by crested wheatgrass. Alfalfa was able to deplete soil water to lower concentrations than crested wheatgrass or wheat. Soil water depletion by wheat during the non-active growth season (after harvest to fall freeze-up) was much less than for CWG or alfalfa as expected for annual vs. perennial crops. As a result, more soil water was available to wheat during its active growth period. In the last 3 yr, the three species depleted all available soil water. Forage yield responses also changed over time. In the initial 3 yr, crested wheatgrass yielded as much as or more than alfalfa. For the last 3 yr of the experiment, alfalfa yielded more forage than crested wheatgrass. Forage crops deplete much more soil water during periods of aboveground growth dormancy than wheat. Water use efficiency of crested wheatgrass declined with stand age compared with fertilized continuous spring wheat. Alfalfa exhibited deep soil water extraction and apparent osmotic adjustment in response to water stress while CWG exhibited tolerance of low water potential during stress. Key words: forage yield, soil water, water potential, water use, water use efficiency, drought

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.

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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.650
Threshold uncertainty score0.957

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.188 · 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