The role of ridge‐furrow with plastic film mulching system on stem lodging resistance of winter wheat in a dry semi‐humid region
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Ridge‐furrow with plastic film mulching (RFPFM) is widely used as a water‐saving strategy for the improvement of crop yield. However, lodging susceptibility under RFPFM practices has not yet been determined. A 2‐yr field study comprising of three cultivation strategies (rain‐fed flat planting [FP], RFPFM, and well‐water planting [WW]) and two N application rates (75 and 225 kg N ha–1) was conducted to assess the risk of lodging and the relationship between lodging resistance and grain yields of two wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) varieties (Xinong979 as lodging resistant and Xiaoyan22 as lodging susceptible). The results showed that higher N application increased lodging index under FP and RFPFM, and the lodging index was 33% lower under RFPFM than under WW. In both years, there was a positive relationship between grain yield and lodging susceptibility (R2 = 0.62** and 0.57**) implying that promoting crop yield by using RFPFM strategy accelerates the risk of lodging. When compared with WW, RFPFM significantly reduced the lodging index, while sustaining a comparable grain yield. Overall, RFPFM could be highly recommended as a promising strategy for winter wheat producers in dry, semi‐humid regions. The close relationships of breaking resistance and lodging index with both mass density and stem wall thickness of basal internode suggest that selection for increased stem strength trait could lead to improved lodging resistance and higher yields in future programs for winter wheat cultivar improvement.
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".