Basal branching in field pea cultivars and yield-density relationships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current recommended plant density in field pea (Pisum sativum L.) in western Canada is 88 plants m –2 . This rate may exceed the optimum for yield in cultivars with more basal branching than typical. The objective of this research was to determine how the seed yield of pea cultivars differing in basal branching ability responds to changes in plant density. Ten pea cultivars were sown at target plant populations of 10, 30, 90, 120, and 150 plant m –2 for 3 yr at Rosthern and Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. At very low plant densities there was greater than a twofold difference in branching potential between cultivars (range 0.85 to 1.99 branches plant –1 ). Increasing field pea plant density reduced branching by 0.097 branches for each additional plant. The response of yield to plant density differed, as the forage cultivars 40-10 and CDC Sonata reached their potential yield at lower densities, while Courier required higher densities to reach the same proportion of yield. Field pea cultivars with greater basal branching achieved their maximum yield at lower plant densities compared with cultivars with low basal branching. The optimum economic plant density for the pea cultivars ranged from 59 to 84 plants m –2 , which is below the current recommended plant density. However, with the exception of the forage cultivars and the low-branching cultivar Courier, the optimum seeding rate was within 8% of 88 seeds m –2 . It is recommended that pea growers avoid low-branching pea cultivars and seed at a rate of 88 viable seeds m –2 .Key words: Basal branching, seeding rate, plant density, light interception, leafed pea, semi-leafless pea, forage pea
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 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".