MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2517077255 · doi:10.21273/hortsci.35.3.497b

584 Cover Crop Evaluations for Eastern Washington Vineyards

2000· article· en· W2517077255 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mercy A. Neumann, Robert L. Wample, Julie M. Tarara, Stephanie L. Greene

Bibliographic record

VenueHortScience · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and fungal interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgronomyCover cropPerennial plantVineyardGrowing seasonBiologyVineWeedBiomass (ecology)Weed controlEnvironmental scienceAgroforestryHorticulture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The location of the Columbia and Yakima valleys present vineyard managers in eastern Washington with significant concerns, particularly low rainfall and wind erosion. Cover crops, as part of a complete management system, can reduce the effects of wind erosion in vineyards by stabilizing soil particles and reducing runoff. Cover crops also reduce weed biomass. During research conducted at Prosser, Wash., 175 foreign and domestic species were assessed for performance as cover crops. Using a screening process, nine species were chosen for evaluation in large commercial plots. Grass species included cereal rye, crested wheatgrass, Sherman Big Blue wheatgrass, perennial rye, pubescent wheatgrass, and three fescues. Legume species included two annual clovers ( Trifolium spp.) and two reseeding annual medics ( Medicago spp.). Unseeded, resident vegetation served as a control. Vine and soil water statuses were monitored regularly. Initial establishment of all species was delayed because of low rainfall throughout the growing season; thus performance varied for each species. Drought-tolerant grass species had better germination and establishment than legumes, due to planting method. In-row water status and vine water potentials remained constant throughout the main portion of the growing season. A mix of crested wheatgrass, perennial rye, and pubescent wheatgrass (Canada mix) gave especially good cover without affecting vine or soil water status. Weed biomass was reduced in most cases, with legumes having least effect; cereal rye, crested wheatgrass and the Canada mix had the greatest effect. Season-long suppression was best achieved with the Canada mix because of the nature of establishment. In this study, most drought-tolerant grasses performed better than legumes; however, with proper establishment, legumes can be a beneficial part of a sustainable agriculture system.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.847
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHortScienceSame topicPlant and fungal interactionsFrench-language works237,207