Effect of Cover Cropping on Subsequent Wheat and Canola Production in Semiarid Western Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cover crops can suppress weeds, control erosion, increase water infiltration and fix nitrogen when legumes are introduced. However, the wide adoption of cover crops in Western Canada is hampered by producers' lack of knowledge and skill in their agronomic management with major cash crops, given that the region is semi-arid and some concerns that cover crops may reduce the yield of subsequent cash crops. To determine the impact of cover cropping in semi-arid Western Canada, a two-year rotation of wheat-canola was established in Saskatchewan, Alberta, and Manitoba to assess the effect of previous cover crop establishment methods and species on the following cash crops (wheat and canola). The experiment was set up in a split-plot design with 4 establishment methods (broadcast pre-plant, drilled with main crop, broadcast mid-season, and drilled after harvest) as the main plot, and 5 cover crop treatments (alfalfa, overwintering clovers, non-overwintering clovers, phacelia, and control) as the subplot. We hypothesize that owing to the duration of growth, previous cover crops seeded earlier in the season would negatively impact wheat or canola grain yield than those seeded later in the season; and as there is no competition with cash crops for resources in the second year, non-overwintering cover crops would result in greater wheat or canola grain yields compared to overwintering cover crop species. This three-province research would help ascertain the risks associated with cover cropping in semi-arid regions and reveal the best practices for adoption in grain cropping systems.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".