MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100438281 · doi:10.4141/p03-078

Cropping frequency effects on yield of grain, straw, plant N, N balance and annual production of spring wheat in the semiarid prairie

2004· article· en· W2100438281 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
C. A. Campbell, R.P. Zentner, F. Selles, V. O. Biederbeck, B.G. McConkey, R. Lemke, Yantai Gan

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgronomyChernozemEnvironmental scienceStrawCroppingCrop rotationCropping systemSoil waterGrowing seasonCrop yieldFertilizerCropBiologyAgricultureSoil science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Producers in the semiarid Canadian prairies practice frequent summerfallow to conserve water and reduce the risk of crop failure, but this practice promotes soil degradation. In contrast, annual cropping enhances soil quality but results in greater economic risk. We need to know what is the most suitable cropping frequency for this region. In 1985, based on results of the first 18 yr of a long-term crop rotation experiment being conducted on a medium-textured, Orthic Brown Chernozem at Swift Current, Saskatchewan, we modified the experiment to allow comparison of four cropping frequencies over the period 1985–2002. These were fallow-spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) (F-W), F-W-W, F-W-W-W-W-W, and continuous wheat (Cont W). All systems received recommended rates of N and P fertilizer. Growing season precipitation during the 1985–2002 period was 10% above average so that grain yields were also above average for this region. We assessed yields of grain, straw and N in aboveground plant parts, N concentration in grain and straw, harvest index, nitrogen harvest index and water use efficiency, and the average annual production (on a rotation basis) of grain, straw and aboveground N yield, and related these characteristics to water deficit. Water deficit was the main factor responsible for annual variations in the characteristics assessed. Of these characteristics, cropping frequency influenced only the average annual productivity factors; it rarely influenced the characteristics when they were assessed on a rotation-phase basis. Assuming cropping frequency (x) for the 2-yr, 3-yr, 6-yr and Cont W rotations is 50%, 67%, 83%, and 100%, respectively, then average annual yields (y) in kg ha -1 yr -1 were related to frequency as follows: (1) for grain yield y = 768 + 10.7 x, r 2 = 0.99; (2) for straw yield y = 1159 + 18.9 x, r 2 = 0.99; and (3) for aboveground plant N yield y = 23.7 + 0.36 x, r 2 = 0.99. The regression between annual grain production and cropping frequency at Swift Current for 1985 to 2002 had a much higher slope than the relationship for the same experiment in the much drier 1967 to 1984 period. Further, the equations for Swift Current in 1985–2002 were similar to the relationships obtained for systems in the subhumid Black Chernozems, indicating such relationships are greatly influenced by weather conditions. These relationships may be useful for conducting economic analyses and for modeling N balance. We conducted an apparent N balance analysis which indicated that all four rotations have lost N from the system in inverse proportion to the frequency of cropping. However, changes in total N in the 0- to 0.3-m depth of soil suggest that they have not lost N and that Cont W gained N over the course of the study. We are not able to explain this apparent anomaly and recommend further research on this question. Key words: Fallow frequency, grain yield, N concentration, N yield, water deficit, water use efficiency, N balance

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.674
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.181 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations43
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsFrench-language works237,207