Forages underseeded in barley for residue management for potatoes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Producers have attempted to increase soil organic matter content in a 2-yr rotation of barley-potato by underseeding barley with forage grasses and legumes. A study beginning in 1996 was initiated to evaluate the effect of this practice on barley yields, root biomass, soil organic matter content, ease of post-harvest tillage as measured by a soil penetrometer and surface plant residue levels for the first year of a 2-yr rotation of barley-potato. Barley seeded alone, barley underseeded with berseem clover, barley underseeded with timothy/red clover, barley underseeded with timothy/red clover fall chisel plowed and barley underseeded with Italian ryegrass were evaluated with and without a fall application of glyphosate on a well-drained, fine sandy loam, Orthic Humo-Ferric Podzol soil. Barley yields were not affected by underseeding. Despite an increase in root biomass for some of the underseeded crops, soil organic matter content was not affected. Potato producers attempting to increase soil organic matter content in a 2-yr rotation of barley-potato by underseeding barley with a forage crop are advised to consider using annual forages such as berseem clover or other solutions such as residue management. Underseeding barley with red clover/timothy will require either a fall application of glyphosate or extra spring tillage to eliminate living plants. By underseeding barley, producers are incurring additional costs and eliminating the option of practising residue management, a soil conservation practice, unless they use glyphosate at an additional cost. Key words: Soil organic matter, glyphosate, root biomass, Italian ryegrass, red clover, berseem clover
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".