Comparing Canola, Field Pea, Dry Bean, and Durum Wheat Crops Grown in Saline Media
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Farmers have requested comparative information on the salt tolerance of the field crops they seek to grow as alternatives to wheat. In response, a study was conducted in the Salt Tolerance Testing Laboratory at Swift Current, SK, to compare the productivity of canola ( Brassica napus cv. Cyclone), field pea ( Pisum sativum cv. green‐seed Radley and cv. yellow‐seed Carneval), and pinto dry bean ( Phaseolus vulgaris cv. Othello) crops to that of a durum wheat ( Triticum turgidum cv. Kyle) crop grown in saline media. Test solutions were salinized prior to seeding by adding NaCl and CaCl 2 (1:1 by mass) to hydroponic nutrients, resulting in three levels of root‐zone salinity: near zero, moderate, and severe [solution electrical conductivities of 1.2 (nutrients only), 11.2, and 24.9 dS m −1 , respectively]. Eight response variables evaluated crop performance: time from seeding to initial emergence, emergence rate, final emergence and survival, plant height, aboveground biomass, grain yield, relative grain yield, and grain yield per plant. The durum wheat emerged and survived moderate and severe salinity better than any of the alternative crops. The wheat crop also produced more biomass and grain under moderately saline conditions than produced by the pea and the bean crops, but not the canola. Under severe salinity, neither the field peas nor the dry bean produced any grain, but the wheat and the canola crops managed to yield 0.4 and 20.1% of their respective productivity in nonsaline rooting media. The combined salt tolerance ranking in ascending order for the crop cultivars grown in both saline rooting media was: Othello = Carneval < Radley < Kyle < Cyclone.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".