Adaptability and Quality of Winter Pea and Lentil in Alberta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is unknown if winter pea ( Pisum sativum L.) and winter lentil ( Lens culinaris Medik.) are feasible cropping options in Alberta. Field experiments were conducted at six locations in southern and central Alberta, Canada, between 2008 and 2012, to determine the adaptability of winter pea and lentil. Two winter pea cultivars, Specter and Windham, and one winter lentil cultivar, Morton, were seeded at three fall planting dates and three seeding rates. Spring cultivars were grown for comparison. In southern Alberta, winter pea and lentil yielded up to 39% more than spring types. The highest winter pea yield was achieved when planting was completed during the first 3 wk of September. The highest winter lentil yield was achieved when planting was completed in the second and third weeks of September. Seeding rate had little or no impact on yield; therefore, winter pea should be seeded at 75 plants m −2 and winter lentil at 110 plants m −2 . Seed was analyzed to compare constituent parameters. There were minor differences in the composition of winter and spring pulses. Windham had lower starch but higher resistant starch, protein, crude fat, and ash content compared with spring pea cultivars. Specter had higher resistant starch but was similar to Cutlass for all other parameters. Morton had a higher starch content than CDC Redberry; however, starch quality was similar. Winter pulses have potential to create new and profitable opportunities for growers in the Bow Island and Lethbridge areas of southern Alberta.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".