Response of irrigated soft white spring wheat to seeding date, seeding rate and fertilization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Irrigated production of soft white spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L. Em Thell.) (SWSW) for pastry flour or ethanol production is feasible if the high yield potential of recently released cultivars can be realized. Field studies were conducted at three locations over a 3-yr period to determine the response of irrigated SWSW to seeding date, seeding rate and fertilization (N, P and K) in southern Alberta. The highest yield was obtained for the first seeding date (Apr. 20 to 24). Seeding 2 wk later reduced ave rage grain yield by 3%, while seeding 4 wk later reduced average grain yield by 15%. The optimum seeding rate was 200 to 240 viable seeds m-2 (84 to 101 kg ha-1). Maximum yields were achieved when total available N (fertilizer + residual soil NO3-N + mineralized N) was greater than 26 kg N Mg-1 of potential yield. Mineralized N ranged from 45 to 183 kg N ha-1 (mean 125 kg N ha-1). Grain protein concentration did not exceed the maximum allowed for protein premiums (99 g kg-1) when total available N was less than 27 kg N Mg-1 of potential yield. The optimum P fertilizer rate was approximately 13 kg P ha-1 unless extractable soil P was very high. No response to K fertilizer was observed. Maximum grain yields of 7.3 to 10.6 Mg ha-1 were achieved by seeding early with a minimum of 200 viable seeds m-2 and application of sufficient N and P fertilizer. Key words: Triticum aestivum, nitrogen fertilizer, N mineralization, grain protein concentration, phosphorus
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".