Efficacy of high seeding rates to increase grain yield of winter wheat and winter triticale in southern Alberta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Field trials were conducted for 3 yr (2002/2003 to 2004/2005) at three locations in southern Alberta to determine the impact of seeding rate and opener type on plant stand and grain yield of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) and winter triticale (× Triticosecale Wittmack). Responses were determined for an optimum date of seeding in early to mid-September and for a late seeding in early to mid-October. Conditions were generally favourable for crop establishment, winter survival and growth, and average site yields ranged from 4.5 to 8.9 Mg ha -1 . The disc opener increased spring plant density by 12.5% compared with the hoe opener, but did not affect grain yield. Spring plant density was 23% lower for winter triticale than winter wheat and 20% lower for October-seeded cereals than September-seeded cereals. Late seeding reduced grain yields of winter wheat and winter triticale by an average of 18 and 11%, respectively. Increases in target seeding rates from 150 to 350 plants m -2 (approximately 70 to 160 kg ha -1 ) did not affect grain yield and quality of September-seeded cereals, but increased grain yield of late-seeded crops by an average of 5 kg per kg increase in seeding rate. High seeding rates did not fully compensate for yield losses caused by late seeding. Key words: Triticum aestivum, × Triticosecale, plant stand density, yield
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".