Within‐Row Plant Spacing Variability Does Not Affect Corn Yield
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nonuniform plant spacing within the row in corn (Zea mays L.) may reduce grain yield. To investigate the response of corn to plant spacing variability, experiments were conducted at two locations in south‐central Ontario during 2000 and 2001. Six plant spacing treatments, 6.7 to 16.2 cm in standard deviations (SD), were established by planting Roundup Ready corn with increasing proportions of conventional corn seeds and then removing the conventional corn using glyphosate before three‐leaf stage. Using SD as well as short gap, long gap, double, and cluster as an index of plant spacing variability, effects of plant spacing variability on corn growth and grain yield were investigated. Averaged across locations and years, grain yield was not significantly affected by plant spacing variability. Plant spacing variability also had no significant effect on leaf number, plant height, leaf area index, and harvest index. There were no correlations between plant spacing variability and stalk lodging and barren or double ears. The lack of strong correlations among plant growth, grain yield, and plant spacing variability indicates that spacing uniformity within the range used in this study is not a significant factor in determining grain yield under commercial conditions and common plant densities used in Ontario.
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) | 0.001 | 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".