Assessing the Contribution of Genetic Enhancements and Fertilizer Application Regimes on Canola Yield and Production Risk in Manitoba
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The number of canola varieties released, since the enactment of Plant Breeders' Rights (PBR) legislation in Canada in 1990, has increased substantively. The effect of genetic enhancements, including PBR, on canola yield and its variance is estimated for canola production regions of Manitoba using the Just‐Pope production function. Diagnostic tests reveal the presence of heteroscedasticity in the data. The percentage of varieties seeded with PBR has a negligible effect on canola yield. Hybrid and herbicide tolerant varieties (HY/HT) seeded on over 90% of canola production area increases average yield by about 6.8%. Increased spatial diversity (more varieties planted on fewer acres) has reduced canola yield by up to 1.7%. Temporal diversity (turnover of varieties) has no significant impact on yield. Nitrogen and sulphur fertilizers are yield increasing. The variance of yield is not impacted by PBR, HY/HT, other technology measures, or by fertilizer other than potassium. Canola breeding programs have not compromised canola yield stability. Depuis l'adoption de la Loi sur la protection des obtentions végétales (LPOV) au Canada en 1990, le nombre de variétés de canola mises au point a augmenté considérablement. L'effet des améliorations génétiques, y compris l'effet de la LPOV, sur le rendement du canola et sa variance a été estimé dans les régions du Manitoba productrices de canola à l'aide de la fonction de production Just‐Pope. Des tests de diagnostic ont révélé la présence d'hétéroscédasticité dans les données. Le pourcentage de variétés ensemencées depuis la LPOV a un effet négligeable sur le rendement de canola. Les variétés hybrides et les variétés tolérantes aux herbicides (HY‐HT) ensemencées sur plus de 90% des superficies cultivées en canola ont augmenté le rendement moyen d'environ 6.8%. L'accroissement de la diversité spatiale (plus de variétés sur moins de superficies) a diminué le rendement du canola jusqu'à 1.7%. La diversité temporelle (rotation des variétés) n'a aucun impact significatif sur le rendement. Les engrais azotés et soufrés augmentent les rendements. La variance du rendement n'est pas influencée par la LPOV, ni les HY‐HT, ni les autres mesures technologiques ni les engrais autres que le potassium. Les programmes de sélection du canola n'ont pas compromis la stabilité du rendement du canola.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".