Contribution of di-nitrogen fixation by pea to the productivity and N budget of a wheat-based cropping system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The productivity and N budget of three crop rotations were determined in a field study beginning in 1997. A duplicate experiment was initiated in 1998; each experiment lasted 3 years. The rotations were: continuous wheat (WWW), oilseed rape-wheat-wheat (RWW) and pea-wheat-wheat (PWW). Wheat and oilseed rape received 0 or 60 kg N/ha, apart from fertilized wheat following pea, which received 22·5 kg N/ha, and in the third year of the rotation all plots received 60 kg N/ha. Peak N2 fixation by pea averaged 86 kg N/ha and grain N offtake was 74 kg N/ha. In the spring following the unfertilized crops the trend for soil NO3-N was: pea>oilseed rape>wheat. The yields of second and third phase wheat followed the order: PWW>WWW>RWW. The superior yield of second phase wheat following pea is attributed to greater availability of N, mainly below the 25 cm depth of soil. Yields of second phase wheat of the other rotations showed no response to N fertilizer, probably because of dry surface soil in those years. Nitrogen deficits of the no-N treatments over the rotation cycle were 31 kg/ha for PWW and RWW and 87 kg/ha for WWW. Application of N fertilizer reduced the N deficit to 13 kg/ha for PWW and resulted in N gains of 22 kg/ha for WWW and 82 kg/ha for RWW. Oilseed rape yields of this study were much lower than normal for the region, thus N removal in the grain was low. It is concluded that pea is superior to oilseed rape as a break crop, and to maintain N balance through the rotation, wheat following pea required about 20 kg/ha less fertilizer N than was applied to wheat following non-legume crops.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".