Effect of seeding date and seeding rate on malting barley production in western Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
O'Donovan, J. T., Turkington, T. K., Edney, M. J., Juskiw, P. E., McKenzie, R. H., Harker, K. N., Clayton, G. W., Lafond, G. P., Grant, C. A., Brandt, S., Johnson, E. N., May, W. E. and Smith, E. 2012. Effect of seeding date and seeding rate on malting barley production in western Canada. Can. J. Plant Sci. 92: 321-330. Barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) growers in western Canada often have difficulty achieving malting grade. This is usually due to unfavourable climatic conditions, but sub-optimal agronomic practices may also be a factor. Field experiments were conducted in 2006, 2007 and 2008 at eight locations in western Canada (24 site-years) to evaluate the effects of seeding date (relatively early and late) and seeding rate (100, 200, 300, 400 and 500 seeds m-2) on AC Metcalfe barley yield and malt quality parameters. Delayed seeding often resulted in negative effects including increased protein concentration, decreased kernel plumpness and yield. However, at 6 site-years, higher yields occurred at the later seeding date. 300 seeds m-2 was usually optimal; maintained or improved yield, decreased protein concentration, increased kernel uniformity and time to seed maturity, and decreased tillering. In most cases, seeding at more than 300 seeds m-2 did not result in an improved outcome, and there was a risk of reduced yield and kernel plumpness at rates above this level. A multivariate analysis indicated that relatively low barley plant densities were associated primarily with northern locations with low soil pH.
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 | 0.001 | 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".