Effect of nitrogen fertilizer rate, herbicide rate, and soil disturbance at seeding on the productivity of a wheat-pea rotation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rotational productivity is a function of the rotational crops and their interactions, as well as the management employed. Understanding the functioning of the overall production system, as well as its component parts, may contribute to improved management. Effects of nitrogen fertilizer rate (25, 50, 75, 100 kg N ha -1 as urea) and herbicide rate (66 or 100% of recommended) applied to wheat, and of the level of soil disturbance at seeding, on the productivity and N status of a 2-yr rotation of spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) and field pea (Pisum sativum L.) were assessed over two rotation cycles at two locations in southwestern Manitoba. Management factors typically acted independently to influence the cropping system. In both wheat and pea, high soil disturbance at seeding reduced or tended to reduce plant density in most site-years, resulting in reduced yields in about half of site-years. In 2 site-years where weed pressure was high, wheat yields for high disturbance treatments were less than 60% of low disturbance seeding, demonstrating the importance of adequate plant stands under sub-optimal growing conditions. The herbicide rate applied to wheat had few significant effects on wheat and pea. In most site-years, N fertilization had limited or negative effects on wheat yields due partly to relatively high soil NO 3 -N levels. Soil NO 3 -N levels declined over the years of the study, suggesting that N contributions from peas did not exceed crop N removal and/or N losses from the wheat-pea rotation. The N rate applied to wheat typically did not affect pea yields. Key words: Wheat, pea, rotation, herbicide, nitrogen, soil disturbance
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| 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".