Economics of pulse crop frequency and sequence in a wheat‐based rotation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Pulse crops (PC) have become an essential part of cropping systems in the northern Great Plains. Despite agronomic benefits of rotating pulses with cereal crops, knowledge of the economics of PC frequency and sequence in a rotation is limited. A field study was conducted from 2010 to 2014 at three locations in western Canada to evaluate the effects of rotating a cereal crop with a range of PC at different frequencies and sequences on the economic returns and risk of both the entire rotation and each individual crop. Crops in rotation included spring wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.) (W), field pea ( Pisum sativum L.) (P), chickpea ( Cicer arietinum L.) (C), lentil ( Lens culinaris Medik) (L), and Oriental mustard ( Brassica juncea L.) (M). Thirteen 4‐yr‐cycle crop rotation treatments, along with a continuous wheat treatment as a baseline, were included. Treatments were arranged in a randomized complete block design with four replicates at each site‐year. The net revenue (NR) was defined as the income remaining after paying all monetary, land and ownership, and labor costs. Crop rotation had a significant effect on average annual NR. The most profitable rotations were L–L–L–W and P–M–L–W. These rotations provided CAN$330 and $235 yr –1 ha –1 higher NR, respectively, than the baseline, and were most preferable by risk‐averse producers. The economic ranking of the rotations remained the same with different crop price scenarios. Preceding PC also had a positive impact on the succeeding wheat crop NR.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 teacher head, 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".