Agronomic characteristics and nutritive value of 11 grasses grown with irrigation on a saline soil in southwestern Saskatchewan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Agronomic and nutritive characteristics of 11 grasses were studied at Swift Current, Saskatchewan on a moderately saline irrigated soil: [smooth bromegrass (Bromus inermis Leyss.), meadow bromegrass (Bromus riparius Rehmann), tall wheatgrass (Elytrigia elongata (Host) Nevski), crested wheatgrass (Agropyron desertorum (Fisch. ex Link) Schult.), intermediate wheatgrass (Elytrigia intermedia (Host) Nevski), slender wheatgrass (Elymus trachycaulus (Linke) Gould ex Shinners), Altai wild ryegrass (Leymus angustus (Trin. Pilger), Russian wild ryegrass (Psathyrostachys junceus (Fisch.) Nevski), Dahurian wild ryegrass (Elymus dahuricus Turcz ex Grieseb), reed canarygrass (Phalaris arudinaceae L.) and creeping foxtail (Alopecurus arundinaceus Poir.)]. Grasses were clipped at threeleaf, heading and seed set. Yield, leaf-to-stem ratio (LSR), botanical composition (BC), crude protein (CP), phosphorus, fibre and in vitro dry matter digestibility (IVDMD) were determined. There were differences (P < 0.05) between the grasses in yield at each growth stage with smooth bromegrass and creeping foxtail having high yields and meadow bromegrass low yields at all growth stages. The BC of most target grasses was greater than 60%. Exceptions were Dahurian wild ryegrass, crested wheatgrass, tall wheatgrass and meadow bromegrass. There were few significant differences between the grasses for LSR, except that Russian and Altai wild ryegrasses and meadow bromegrass had higher LSR (P < 0.05) than the other grasses. Differences in CP, P, neutral (NDF) and acid (ADF) detergent fibres were inconsistent and small at each growth stage but CP and P declined (P < 0.05) while NDF and ADF increased (P < 0.05) with plant maturation. There were differences (P < 0.05) between years and cuts for all traits except between years for yield, BC and LSR at seed set (P > 0.05). Dry matter intake (DMI) NDF and in vivo dry matter digestibility (DMD) were determined for hay cut from each plot using sheep. The relationship between forage NDF and DMI: DMI g kg BW-1 d-1 = 86.5 – 0.09 NDF (r2 = 0.87; RSD = 1.16; P < 0.001)]
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".