Yield and Quality of Cereal and Cereal-Pea Companion Crops and Their Effect on Alfalfa Establishment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was carried out to determine the effect of management practices (harvest maturity, cereal species, mixtures with field peas (Pisum sativum)) on the yield and quality of cereal companion crops harvested for forage and the impact of those practices on subsequent alfalfa (Medicago sativa) yields. Replicated factorial experiments were conducted at three locations in northern Ontario from 1993 to 1995. Companion crop forage yields were increased and quality decreased by harvesting as the heads emerged as compared to the late boot stage. Triticale (X Triticosecale) was lower yielding than either oats (Avena sativa) or barley (Hordeum vulgare). Triticale quality was higher primarily due to a higher content of underseeded alfalfa in the harvested forage. Adding peas to cereal companion crops increased crude protein by 2 to 5 percentage units and decreased NDF by 3 to 7 percentage units. Companion crop management usually had no effect on followingyear alfalfa yields, except when cereal regrowth was unusually vigorous. Recommendations for companion crop management specific to the intended end-use can now be formulated.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".