Yield, water use, and protein content of spring wheat grown after six years of alfalfa, crested wheatgrass, or spring wheat in semiarid southwestern Saskatchewan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the semiarid prairie of western Canada, there is renewed interest for including short durations (≤3 yr) of perennial forage in rotations with annual crops. However, there are producers who want to grow longer durations (≥4 yr) of perennial forages in rotational systems. Therefore, we assessed spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) yield, grain protein, and water use efficiency following 6 yr of either crested wheatgrass [Agropyron cristatum (L.) Gaertn.], or alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.), or wheat, and then 1 yr of fallow. Yield, water use, and water use efficiency were significantly lower in the first year of spring wheat production (2000) when the prior crop was crested wheatgrass or alfalfa than when it was wheat. In the second year (2001), which was a near record drought year, wheat yield and water use were significantly lower when the prior crop was alfalfa than when it was grass or wheat. From 2002 to 2005, there were no consistent differences in water use, water use efficiency, or yield of wheat due to the prior perennial crop. Wheat grain protein concentration was significantly higher following alfalfa compared with following crested wheatgrass or continuous spring wheat from 2000 to 2005. This effect was attributed to the higher N-supplying power of the soil following alfalfa. Soil water content below the rooting depth of most annual crops (≥120 cm depth) was reduced by the prior alfalfa crop, and there was no evidence from 2000 to 2005 that soil water recharge was occurring below the 150-cm depth. Key words: Semiarid prairie, alfalfa, grass, spring wheat, yield, protein, water use
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".