PSVII-9 Agronomic characteristics and nutrient composition of purple prairie clover grown under irrigated and dryland conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Dry matter (DM) yield, nutrient composition, and in vitro digestibility of three populations (Common, AC Lamour, Bismarck) of purple prairie clover (PPC; Dalea purpurea Vent.) were determined in a 3-year study. Test plots of the populations were established in the 1st year under irrigation and dryland and whole plants were harvested at vegetative, full flower and late flower stages for determination of DM yield and nutritional characteristics in the 2nd and 3rd year. Only one cut per season was achieved for all populations under both growing conditions. The DM yield was similar among the three populations but irrigated land yielded higher (P < 0.01) DM than dryland in both years. The average DM yields (kg/ha; mean±SD) at the vegetative, full flower and late flower stages were 4739±1431, 4988±1547 and 6715±1580 under irrigation and 1423±479, 2014±348 and 2297±942 under dryland. Nutrient composition (organic matter, protein, neutral and acid detergent fibres and minerals) was similar among the three populations. Protein content was higher (P < 0.01) but neutral and acid detergent fibre content was lower (P < 0.05) in plants grown under irrigation than on dryland. Condensed tannin concentration was higher (P < 0.05) in plants grown under dryland than under irrigation. In vitro organic matter digestibility was higher (P < 0.05) for PPC grown under irrigation than on dryland. The PPC was readily established on both dry and irrigated land with comparable nutrient content to that of alfalfa and sainfoin under the similar growing conditions. Purple prairie clover has potential as an alternative legume forage, but its yearly yield is substantially lower than conventional legume forages.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".