Residue Removal and Nitrogen Fertilization Affects Tiller Development and Flowering in Meadow Bromegrass
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT found that large spring tillers were more likely to flower Flowering and seed yield in many temperate grasses are dependent on floral induction in the previous fall. Field experiments were con-than small spring tillers of smooth bromegrass and crested wheatgrass [Agropyron cristatum (L.) Gaertn.]. ducted in Saskatchewan to determine the effect of crop residue re- Recently, Chastain and Young (1998) found that fall moval and N fertilization on tiller and panicle development in meadow tiller size, based on tiller basal diameter, did not account bromegrass (Bromus riparius Rehm.). Four residue removal treat- for the variability in seed yield related to various residue ments (none, after harvest, October, and after harvest � October) and three N treatments (0, 50, and 100 kg N ha management techniques in Kentucky bluegrass. This �1) were applied in each of 2 yr. Tiller density and leaf stage were determined in fall and spring; panicle density was determined just before seed harvest each year. Removing crop residue generally increased tiller and panicle
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".