MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2946613651 · doi:10.1016/j.fcr.2019.05.015

Potential yield benefits from increased vernalisation requirement of canola in Southern Australia

2019· article· en· W2946613651 on OpenAlex
Brendan Christy, Jens Berger, Heping Zhang, Penny Riffkin, Angela Merry, Anna Weeks, Terry McLean, Garry J. O’Leary

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueField Crops Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersTasmanian Institute of AgricultureGrains Research and Development CorporationDepartment of Jobs, Precincts and RegionsMcMaster University
KeywordsCanolaAgronomyCultivarCroppingBiologyPhenologyCropSpring (device)RapeseedBrassicaEnvironmental scienceEngineeringEcologyAgriculture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Long season, winter-type canola cultivars have the potential for significantly higher yields than short-season, spring-type canola, yet until recently, breeding of new canola cultivars in Australia has focussed on spring-type canola. This has been to accommodate the typically drier, warmer conditions across the Australian cropping belt where long-season varieties do not perform well due to delayed flowering and risk of water-stress during grain fill. However, as cropping continues to expand into the Australian High Rainfall Zone (500–900 mm, HRZ), breeders have become increasingly interested in developing winter-spring crosses (not yet commercially available) which have an intermediate phenology between that of a spring and winter-type canola. As the vernalisation requirement for these crosses is lower than winter-type canola, the areas where such cultivars can be grown profitably in Australia is potentially much wider than for winter-type canola. Field experimentation and crop simulation studies across the potential cropping region of southern Australia were used to determine the yield potential of these winter-spring canola crosses compared with currently available spring-type and winter-type cultivars. Our analysis showed that the four winter-spring crosses evaluated had a range of vernalisation requirements which were between the small requirements of spring-types and the large requirement of winter-types. In this study the Catchment Analysis Tool (CAT) spatial modelling framework was used to determine the expected canola yields of four cultivars across the entire cropping region of southern Australia. These cultivars were the spring-type 45Y88CL, winter-type Hyola® 970CL and two winter-spring crosses K50057 and K50058 with vernalisation requirements at the higher end and the lower end of the range of winter-spring crosses, respectively. The potential benefit of some increase in the vernalisation requirement, based on the area currently sown to canola, was an additional 381 M tonnes per year (based on 50-year average) of canola, if K50058 was sown in areas where it proved superior to 45Y88CL. At the 5-year average canola price of $486 t−1, this would provide an additional AUD 185 Mil/annum for the industry. In general, the modelled yield advantage from canola cultivars with increased vernalisation requirement was greater in the areas of southern Australia that had milder climates and higher rainfall. The value to the Australian canola industry of substituting spring cultivars (e.g. 45Y88CL) with winter x spring (K50057) or winter (Hyola970CL) cultivars where they had a yield advantage, was AUD 82.8 M and AUD 29.2 M, respectively.

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.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.466
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

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)0.0030.000

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.225 · 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