Winter damage to perennial forage crops in eastern Canada: Causes, mitigation, and prediction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Harsh winter climate results in frequent losses of stands and yield reduction in many forage-growing areas of Canada and other parts of the world. Climatic conditions and crop management both affect the winter survival of perennial forage crops. In this review, we present the main causes of winter damage in eastern Canada and we discuss crop management practices that help mitigate the risks of losses. Predictive tools available to assess the risks of winter damage both spatially and temporally are also presented. Our understanding of the causes of winter damage and of the plant adaptation mechanisms to winter stresses, particularly the role of N and C organic reserves, has improved. Forage species commonly grown in eastern Canada differ in their tolerance to subfreezing temperatures and to anoxia caused by the presence of ice on fields. Some improvement in winter hardiness of forage legume species has been achieved through breeding in eastern Canada but new technologies based on laboratory freezing tests and the identification of molecular markers may facilitate the future development of winter-hardy cultivars. Crop management practices required for good winter survival are now better defined, particularly those involving cutting management and the interval between harvests. Simulation models and climatic indices derived from our current knowledge of the causes of winter damage provide general indications on the risk of winter damage but their degree of precision and accuracy is still not satisfactory. Further improvements in winter survival require a more thorough understanding of the different causes of winter damage and, primarily, of their complex interactions with genetic, climatic, and management factors. Key words: Alfalfa, organic reserves, culitvars, species, management, climate
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".