Seed Priming Does Not Improve Corn Yield in a Humid Temperate Environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Early emergence and stand establishment of corn ( Zea mays L.) is considered to be one of the most important yield‐contributing factors in eastern Ontario. A pot experiment and two field experiments were conducted in Ottawa, Canada, to evaluate the effects of seed priming with water, osmotic solution (2.5% KCl), and plant growth regulators (indole acetic acid, cytokinin, ethephon and gibberellic acid) on emergence, seedling vigor, N response, and grain yield of corn. Time to seedling emergence, seedling vigor, and growth were measured in a pot experiment under a greenhouse condition while field performances, N response, and grain yield were determined in field experiments. In the greenhouse study, none of the treatments were better than the unsoaked control. Under field conditions, both hybrids and N application had significant effects on grain yield, but there was no yield advantage due to any of the seed treatments. Seed soaking with 20 ppm gibberallic acid (GA 3 ) solution for 30 min improved seedling vigor (i.e., seedling height and growth), but this was not translated into greater grain yield. Seed soaking with water for 16 h significantly reduced percentage emergence and final plant stand in 2002 while in 2003, seed soaking with 2.5% KCl and 20 ppm GA 3 solution for 16 h significantly reduced plant stand and grain yield under the 150 kg N ha −1 treatment. Despite some positive effects of seed priming on seedling vigor and stand establishment, none of the seed‐priming treatments tested showed beneficial effects on grain yield and N efficiency under the temperate‐humid conditions such as in eastern Ontario.
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) | 0.001 | 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".