Evaluation of Management Practices for Grain Amaranth Production in Eastern Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Grain amaranth ( Amaranthus spp.) is a C4 dicotyledonous pseudocereal crop that was widely cultivated in pre‐Columbian America. It was successfully introduced in many regions with contrasting environmental conditions. The introduction of grain amaranth in eastern Canada would represent an opportunity for diversification. A study was conducted to evaluate management practices for grain amaranth grown in this region. Three field experiments replicated in three environments were conducted to evaluate the following factors: (i) seeding date (mid‐May, early‐June, and mid‐June) and cultivar (K432, K593, and Plainsman); (ii) row spacing (38, 58, and 76 cm) and seeding rate (1, 2, and 4 kg ha −1 ), and (iii) N fertilization rate (0, 50, 100, 150, and 200 kg N ha −1 ) and cultivar (D136 and Plainsman). Seeding date affected grain yield in only one out of three environments, with the earlier date resulting in the highest yields. Cultivars differed in yield in only one of three environments, with Plainsman resulting in highest yields. Later seeding dates resulted in higher seed moisture at harvest in all environments. Seeding rate and row spacing did not affect grain yield, but row spacing affected grain moisture at harvest, with narrower rows resulting in grains with lower moisture content. Nitrogen fertilization increased yield and lodging in only one environment. Seed moisture and plant height were positively related to N fertilization in all environments. Cultivar D136 yielded more than Plainsman in 2005 and less in 2006. Therefore, grain amaranth production in eastern Canada seems possible, management practices having limited impact on grain yield, which averaged 923 kg ha −1 across all experiments and environments.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".