Revisiting seedrow nitrogen placement with barley and wheat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rates of nitrogen (N) that can be safely placed with the seed remains a frequent question of producers, especially as direct seeding continues to increase as a practice in western Canada. Guidelines have been in place since the mid-1990s; however, they address only "favourable conditions" and experimentation relating to their derivation has not been formally published. This study attempted to quantify "favourable conditions" as well as supplement existing guidelines with information under non-favourable or ideal conditions so that producers may assess the risk of applying N with the seed. To this end, the results from 32 experiments with CWRS wheat and 10 with barley conducted in early to mid-1990s were compiled. The experimental design included three seedbed utilization (SBU) rates (10, 20, and 40%) and five N rates (0, 20, 40, 60, and 80 kg N ha-1) with four replications. Grain yield, relative plant stands (calculated as a percentage of the unfertilized control) and days to maturity (DTM) were determined in all experiments. Three types of responses to seedrow N application occurred. Type A had no impact of fertilizer N rate on the yield of CWRS wheat at wide (40%) SBU, but grain yield decreased at narrower SBU (10 and 20%). Type B had no impact of fertilizer N rate on the yield of CWRS wheat at narrow (10%) SBU but grain yield increased at wide SBU (20 and 40%). Type C had grain yield increases due to fertilizer N independent of SBU. Type A was characterized by dry soil moisture conditions and relatively high residual NO3−-N levels, whereas Types B and C were characterized by normal and very moist soil conditions and low to medium residual NO3−-N levels. The results within each response type were modified by soil organic matter (SOM) and texture. Grain yield losses generally occurred when relative plants stands were below 85% of those of unfertilized plots. In addition, conditions that led to a decrease in relative plant stands and grain yield also resulted in delayed maturity. Accounting for all the above factors enabled us to expand current guidelines under normal conditions to a range of agroecological conditions. Key words: Guideline, texture, soil organic matter, residual NO3−-N, soil moisture
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".