Spring Wheat Productivity and Profitability Under Various Crop Rotations in Northern Kazakhstan's Chernozem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rational land use and sustainable agriculture are crucial due to population growth and climate change.Crop rotation, with scientific approaches, maintains soil productivity and crop sustainability.The purpose of the study is to compare the production potential of different wheat cropping systems, including continuous spring wheat cropping and grainfallow crop rotations.The research included a control variant with spring wheat sown without changing the predecessor and variants of grain and steam crop rotations with different numbers of fields.Plant productivity indicators were evaluated -the number of productive stems per 1 m 2 , weight of 1000 grains, and yield.All experiments were repeated 3 times for each variant.In the process, field experiments were conducted from 2014 to 2022 at the territory of LLP "North Kazakhstan Agricultural Experimental Station" in the steppe zone of the North Kazakhstan Region, Akkayin district.It was found that spring soft wheat monoculture has a grain yield per 1 ha higher by 4 metric centners compared to two-field crop rotation.However, three-field and four-field crop rotations showed even higher grain yield, exceeding monoculture by 5.6 metric centners and 4 metric centners, respectively.The profitability of monoculture is 22%, which is 17.4% lower than the two-field crop rotation.The profitability of three-field and fourfield crop rotations exceeds monoculture by 99.7% and 55.5%, respectively.The fourfield crop rotation reaches a maximum profit of 167.3 USD/ha, and a minimum profit of USD 39.3 is established with wheat monoculture.Thus, the use of three-field and fourfield grain-fallow crop rotations can significantly increase the profitability of wheat cultivation.These crop rotations provide a higher yield of grain from 1 ha of crop rotation area and have higher profitability.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".