The Economically Optimal Nitrogen Rate for Spring Wheat Production in West-Central Saskatchewan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wheat is an essential crop for global food security serving as a staple food crop in households worldwide, providing a significant portion of the daily calorie needs. While significant wheat yield advancements have been achieved over time, a gap between farmer-realized wheat yields and their genetic potential persists. Several studies have estimated that average wheat yields range from 20 to 70% of their potential, suggesting that significant contributions to global wheat production are possible. Additionally, many yield gap studies have identified fertilizer deficiencies as a major contributor to the yield gap. These studies, however, have failed to examine if it is economically desirable at the farm level to increase fertilizer use in order to reduce the yield gap. This study examines how much of the yield gap for spring wheat in west-central Saskatchewan is economically exploitable with respect to synthetic nitrogen fertilizer use. A spring wheat yield response function was estimated using field-level yield, input, and management data to determine the impact of various input levels and management characteristics on yields. Focusing specifically on nitrogen use, observed nitrogen rates were compared to estimated economically optimal nitrogen rates to determine that spring wheat fields on the most productive soils were observed having received suboptimal nitrogen rates while those on the least productive soils had received nitrogen rates beyond what was estimated to be economically optimal. Spring wheat produced on fields that followed a pulse crop exhibited the largest economically exploitable yield gap, indicating an increased yield response to applied nitrogen for subsequent crops following pulses. Producers may be able to reduce a portion of the yield gap for wheat in west-central Saskatchewan by increasing nitrogen rates when producing wheat on pulse stubble. Observed application rates of nitrogen appeared to follow recommended agronomic yield targets rather than yield potential. Additionally, spring wheat variety and the management ability of the producer significantly impacted estimated spring wheat yields.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".