Investigation of the Effects of Plant Density and Planting Date on the Quantitative and Qualitative Yields of Two Advanced Soybean Lines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A split split plot experiment in the format of randomized complete block design with three replications was carried out in the experimental field of the Islamic Azad University of Qaemshahr in 2010. The treatments included the planting dates (28th April and 14th June) as the main plot, the soybean lines 032 and 033 as the sub plot, and the plant density (20, 28 and 40 plants per square meter) as the sub-sub plot. Results obtained showed that the plant density was only significant concerning the features of the number of seeds and the number of pods per plant, the planting date was also only significant regarding the harvest index, the percentage seed oil content was also just influenced by the cultivar used and by the mutual effects of the planting date and the cultivar and also by the mutual effects of the planting date and the cultivar. The summer crop was superior to the spring crop in all the features studied, because it seemed that the high temperature and the very little rainfall before and after pollination and flowering reduced seed and pod formation in the spring crop, as compared to the summer crop. In most of the features studied, line 033 performed better than line 032. Moreover, the most desirable density for obtaining the highest seed and oil yield was 20 plants per square meter, because at this density features such as the number of seeds per plant, the number of pods per plant, the 100-seed weight, and seed oil content were superior. Soybean planted after harvesting wheat (i.e. the summer crop) exhibited greater potential regarding seed yield as compared to the crop planted after harvesting canola (i.e. the spring crop).
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".