Evaluation of yield and agronomic performance of leafed and semi‐leafless pea blends
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Field pea ( Pisum sativum L.) has two distinct leaf morphologies, leafed (L) and semi‐leafless (SL). Grown together, SL and L pea blends have better weed control and higher crop yield than sole crops of either leaf type. Previous studies have only investigated mixing leaf types from two distinct varieties, and therefore the blend could be affected by traits specific to each pea variety rather than the difference in leaf type. To determine if yield and agronomic improvement of pea leaf blends are due solely to leaf type, this study (a) compared leaf blends of near‐isogenic lines with the same varieties grown in monoculture, and (b) determined whether intercepted solar radiation, disease‐resistance, lodging performance, biomass, and yield were improved by growing a varietal mixture. Five field experiments tested all possible pairings of four near‐isogenic L and SL lines in a single ratio (75:25, SL/L), compared with monocultures (100% SL or 100% L). The results found that the leaf‐type blends had 11% less lodging than the L monoculture and had an 8.5% greater seed yield than the L monoculture in one variety. The near‐isogenic blends and non‐isogenic blends did not differ significantly for foliar disease, lodging, biomass, yield, and yield stability. Consequently, the exhaustive comparison of near‐isogenic or non‐isogenic blends grown under multiple environments indicates that SL and L pea blends have nonsignificant yield and agronomic advantages compared with SL monocultures.
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 | 0.002 | 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 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".