Mixture performance of phenotypically contrasting barley cultivars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is lack of information on the yield and yield component performance of same-row and alternate-row mixtures (SRM and ARM) of widely contrasting barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) phenotypes. Therefore, four phenotypically contrasting spring barley cultivars, each selected to represent a unique combination of spike type (two-row or six-row), height (short or tall) and days to maturity (early or late) were used in 1991 and 1992 in field experiments at the Elora Research Station in Ontario, Canada, with the objective of determining whether a yield and/or yield-component advantage could be associated with same-row or alternate-row mixtures of barley cultivars. The four cultivars chosen for the study were each grown as monocrops, and in all six possible binary (two-cultivar) mixture combinations as same-row or alternate-row mixtures, in a randomized complete block design. A 13% yield increase of early, short:late, tall SRM over the midcomponent (weighted mean of the components grown in monocrop) yield in 1991, and 14% yield increase of early, tall:late, tall SRM over the midcomponent yield in 1992 was observed. Between the 2 yr, cultivars in ARM produced similar or significantly greater yields than the monocrop yields, except in 1991, when the late, short cultivar in ARM with early, tall cultivar produced significantly lower yields than in monocrop. The spike number m–2 was similar for all mixtures and their midcomponents, except in 1992, when early, short:late, short in ARM produced 7.0% more spikes than the midcomponent. The results of this study indicate a possible yield advantage of phenotypically contrasting barley mixtures compared to monocrops, with early, short:late, tall and early, tall:late, tall in same-row mixtures having the best combining abilities. Key words: Barley, phenotypes; mixture, same row; mixture, alternate-row; maturity; height
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".