MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2476531537 · doi:10.5539/jas.v8n8p13

Kenaf (Hibiscus cannabinus) and Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) as Sugarcane Cover Crops

2016· article· en· W2476531537 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Charles L. Webber, Paul M. White, Caleb D. Dalley, Eric C. Petrie, Ryan P. Viator, James W. Shrefler

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicHibiscus Plant Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKenafSowingCropAgronomyVignaCover cropHibiscusBiologyIntercroppingHorticulture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A Louisiana sugarcane field is typically replanted every four years due to declining yields, and, although, it is a costly process, it is both necessary and an opportunity to maximize the financial return during the next four year cropping cycle. Fallow planting systems (FPS) during the fallow period prior to replanting sugarcane have the potential to influence not only the following sugarcane crop, but the economics of the production system as a whole. A 2 year experiment was conducted at the USDA, ARS, Sugarcane Research Unit at Houma, LA to determine the impact of unique FPS on sugarcane production. The experiment included seven treatments; two cover crops, kenaf (Hibiscus cannabinus L.) and cowpeas (Vigna unguiculata L. Walp.), three FPS harvest treatments for each FPS crop, and a control. The experiment had four replications. Kenaf was selected as a potential cover crop due to interest in its commercial by-products and cowpea was selected due to its potential to facilitate climate friendly soils. The kenaf and cowpeas were planted on 8 May 2013. The three FPS harvest treatments included the removal of the FPS crop at 50 days after planting (DAP), the removal of the harvested FPS crop at 100 DAP, and lastly, cutting the FPS crop at 100 DAP and incorporating the plant material into the soil prior to sugarcane planting. The control treatment did not have a cover crop. Unlike kenaf, the cowpea leaf, fresh and dry weight yields (50 DAP), 19.4 and 2.5 mt/ha, respectively, decreased to 17.0 and 2.4 mt/ha (100 DAP). Although the sugarcane total recoverable sucrose (TRS) (kg/mt) was greater with the kenaf cover-crop treatment 50 DAP (120 kg/mt) compared to the cowpea treatment 50 DAP (111 kg/mt) and the cowpea 100 DAP with the residue incorporated (112 kg/ha), none of the FPS crop treatments were significantly better or worse than the control (no cover crop). The average values for the sugarcane production factors across all treatments were 95,700 stalks/ha (millable stalks), 112 mt/ha (sugarcane yield), 114 kg/mt (sugar yield per metric ton of sugarcane), and 12,841 kg/ha (sugar yield per hectare). The results demonstrate the potential use of these alternative cover crops during the fallow period prior to planting sugarcane without adversely affecting the plant cane yields.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.079

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.353 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicHibiscus Plant Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207