MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3139237704 · doi:10.1139/cjps-2020-0249

Introduction of four native legumes of the Canadian Prairies in monoculture and in mixtures with meadow bromegrass (<i>Bromus riparius</i>)

2021· article· en· W3139237704 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Shanna Marie Quilichini, Michael P. Schellenberg, Bill Biligetu

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicTurfgrass Adaptation and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaSaskatchewan Forage NetworkMinistry of Agriculture - SaskatchewanUniversity of Saskatchewan
KeywordsMonocultureBiologyLegumeAgronomyForageSowingBromusPoaceae

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many questions remain concerning the viability and productivity of seeding native legumes in the Canadian Prairies for forage production. Field research was conducted with four native legume species (Astragalus flexuosus, Dalea purpurea, Hedysarum boreale, and Vicia americana) to evaluate performance in Swift Current and Saskatoon, SK. The experimental design was a randomized complete block design with four replicates to evaluate legume–grass mixtures and monoculture performance, botanical composition, and effect of harvest dates (July and August) from 2016 to 2018. The native legume–grass mixtures performed differently at the sites, with greater foliar cover at Saskatoon but a greater proportion of legumes in mixtures at Swift Current. The mixtures had similar forage nutritive value as monoculture Bromus riparius, with legumes contributing 10% or less of the forage dry matter yield (DMY) at both sites. Astragalus flexuosus showed the greatest foliar cover and produced the greatest DMY in monoculture at both sites. Based on this study, native legumes would need to make up a larger proportion of forage dry matter yield to change the nutritional value of mixtures. In a subsequent seeding rate evaluation, the four legume species were planted at three seeding rates [300, 200, and 100 pure live seeds (PLS) per metre] and tested for DMY one year following establishment near Swift Current. Increasing seeding rates up to 300 PLS·m −1 corresponded with an increase in seedling density and foliar cover, but DMY was not affected. Additional research with A. flexuosus is needed to demonstrate its value as a forage.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.648
Threshold uncertainty score0.658

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.179
Teacher spread0.172 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicTurfgrass Adaptation and ManagementFrench-language works237,207