Row spacing and irrigation effects on water consumption of winter wheat in Taian, China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Management practices can have a major impact on the successful production of winter cereals. A field experiment was conducted with winter wheat (Triticum aestivum) to compare the effects of two row spacing planting patterns (row width set at 30 cm, 30; or row widths set at a narrow row of 20 cm and a wide row of 40 cm, 20 + 40) and four irrigation schedules (no irrigation, T0; irrigation given at stem elongation stage, T1; at stem elongation and heading stage, T2; at stem elongation, heading and milk stage, T3) on yield, water use efficiency (WUE), evapotranspiration (ET) and soil water content (SWC) for the 2003/2004 and 2004/2005 seasons at Taian, Shandong Province, China. Mean soil daily evaporation (Es) was greater in the wide row than the narrow row, and resulted in decreased SWC in the wide row. For the same irrigation treatment, no significant differences in changes of SWC and yield were found between the row-spacing planting patterns in either season. Differences in ET were found in 2005 with ET from the T0 treatment being much lower than the irrigated treatments for both planting patterns. During the cropping season in 2005, WUE of the T3 treatment was lower than from the T1 and T0 treatments at the same planting patterns. The WUE of the 20 + 40 planting pattern was lower than that of the 30 planting pattern with the same irrigation schedule, perhaps due to elevated levels of evaporation from the soil beneath the canopy and decreased yields for the 20 + 40 planting pattern. Therefore, based on WUE, the effect of the 30 planting pattern was better than that of the 20 + 40. Key words: Planting pattern, soil water content, evapotranspiration, water use efficiency, grain yield, Triticum aestivum
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 | 0.001 | 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".