Timing, Effect, and Recovery from Intraspecific Competition in Maize
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In production agriculture, it is not uncommon for a crop to experience both intra‐ and interspecific competition during the normal course of development. Although the competition between crop plants (i.e., intraspecifc) is often considered independently of crop‐weed competition (i.e., interspecific), the mechanisms through which yields are reduced may be common to both. The objective of this study was to use the experimental structure of a critical time for weed removal study to examine the timing and effect of intraspecific competition on maize (Zea mays L.) biomass accumulation and phenological development. A field trial was conducted in which maize stands were thinned from a higher to a lower density at six stages of development. Results indicated that intraspecific competition at densities of 8 and 16 plants m−2 did not affect maize biomass accumulation until the 14th and 12th leaf tip stages, respectively. Before these stages, maize seedling growth at 8 or 16 plants m−2 was not resource limited. Increases in leaf area index and specific leaf area at the onset of intraspecific competition, and the recovery of plants following the removal of competitors, suggest that reductions in the rate of crop growth and development may have been linked to competition for light quantity.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".