Companion crop establishment of short-lived perennial forage crops in Saskatchewan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Short-lived perennial forages may provide producers with a cash hay crop as a viable option to diversify annual grain rotations. Little or no information on alternative annual crops for companion crop establishment of forages is available for Saskatchewan conditions. We evaluated field pea (Pisum sativum), canola (Brassica napus), and Westerwolds ryegrass (Lolium westerwoldicum) as companion crops over 3 yr (1998–2000) at three Saskatchewan sites: Swift Current (Brown soil zone), Saskatoon (Dark Brown) and Nipawin (Dark Gray). We also compared three short-lived, vigourous grass species in mixture with two alfalfa (Medicago sativa) cultivars or monoculture. Combinations of precipitation and temperature variables combined with companion crop plant density and biomass explained 90% of the variation in forage yield loss relative to no companion crop forage yield. We conclude that companion crops can be used with low yield reductions at Nipawin, but that all three companion crops significantly reduced forage yield at Swift Current. Forage seedling density was reduced under companion crops but the decline in forage seedling density did not explain the reduction in forage yield. We speculate that yield components rather than plant density must have been affected by companion crop competition. Intermediate wheatgrass (Elytrigia intermedia) produced higher forage yield than Dahurian wildrye (Elymus dahuricus) or slender wheatgrass (Elymus trachycaulus). Grass-alfalfa mixtures produced higher forage yield than grass mono culture. Economic returns were superior if no companion crop was used to establish the forages at Swift Current and Saskatoon; but, at Nipawin economic returns were generally higher with companion crop establishment. The feasibility of companion crops for establishment of short-lived perennial forages in Saskatchewan thus depends on soil zone, with their use best suited to the more humid regions. Key words: Forage yield, plant density, weather, economics
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".