Fall and early spring seeding of canola (<i>Brassica napus</i> L.) using different methods of seeding and phosphorus placement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fall seeding of canola has been suggested as an alternative to spring seeding in order to avoid environmental stress, foster early maturity, produce larger seed and possibly realise yield and oil content benefits. Further, the practice of broadcast-seeding canola has been introduced to save time and allow fertilizer application while seeding in fields that are wet in the spring. This study was designed to assess methods of phosphorus placement under these alternative seeding dates and methods. Canola was broadcast or seed-row placed either in the fall (14 to 28 October) or spring (26 April to 3 May) of each crop year. We assessed phosphorus fertilization for these options by either broadcasting or banding and seed-placing or side-banding 0, 20, and 40 kg P2O5 ha–1 for broadcast and row seeding, respectively. Fall seeding of canola did result in earlier maturity (7 to 10 d) and larger seed in all experiments. Spring-seeded canola provided a yield advantage (average 14% over all six experiments), especially in the three experiments carried out in the Black Soil Zone (average yield increase of 24.8%). There was a response to phosphate fertilization in three of the six sites, which were considered to be phosphorus deficient. The effectiveness of phosphate application was associated with the method of seeding and thus phosphate placement, because row-seeded canola yielded higher at the phosphorus-deficient sites. Generally, there was no interaction between the time of seeding and phosphate fertilization. The results on the impact of seeding time on oil content were inconclusive as oil content increased at one site, decreased at another and remained unchanged at the rest. Key words: Seeding date, broadcast seeding, row seeding, oil content, crop maturity
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".