Residue management increases seed yield of three turfgrass species on the Canadian prairies
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Little information is available on the management of turfgrass species for seed production in the Canadian prairies. The objective of these studies was to assess the impact of residue management and row spacing on seed yield under irrigation. A factorial experiment was seeded at Saskatoon, SK, in 1993 to assess the impact of burning or scalping (very close mowing with residue removal) vs. mowing, and 20- vs. 40-cm row spacing on seed yield of Kentucky bluegrass (KBG) (Poa pratensis), creeping red fescue (CRF) (Festuca rubra subsp. rubra) and creeping bentgrass (CBG) (Agrostis palustris). Also, a residue management trial on KBG was seeded at Brooks, AB, in 1993. At Saskatoon, yield was higher at 20-cm spacing across all three species in 1994, but spacing had no impact on winter survival, stand density, tiller growth or yield in subsequent years. Burning and scalping consistently resulted in earlier spring green-up, a higher proportion of fertile tillers, and higher seed yield than mowing. Even with residue management, yield declined after one harvest in CBG and CRF, and after two harvests in KBG. At Brooks, residue management had a similar impact on yield of KBG. A second trial at Brooks examined the impact of row spacing (20, 40, 60 cm) and seeding rate (0.5 to 6 kg seed ha -1 ) on KBG. Seed yield was highest at 40-cm spacings in 1994, at 60 cm in 1995, and at 40 to 60 cm in 1996. Seeding rate did not have a consistent effect on yield. We conclude that a combination of residue management and 20- to 40-cm spacings provide the highest, most consistent seed yields for these turfgrass species in this region. Key words: Burning, clipping, turfgrass, seed production, row spacing, Poa, Festuca, Agrostis
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it