MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1912108301 · doi:10.1002/jsfa.7238

Evaluating the use of plant hormones and biostimulators in forage pastures to enhance shoot dry biomass production by perennial ryegrass (<i>Lolium perenne</i> L.)

2015· review· en· W1912108301 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammad Zaman, Leonid V. Kurepin, W.D. Catto, Richard P. Pharis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Science of Food and Agriculture · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Growth Enhancement Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLolium perenneAgronomyPerennial plantPastureDry matterShootForageBiomass (ecology)GrazingBiologyLoliumEnvironmental sciencePoaceae

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fertilisation of established perennial ryegrass forage pastures with nitrogen (N)-based fertilisers is currently the most common practice used on farms to increase pasture forage biomass yield. However, over-fertilisation can lead to undesired environmental impacts, including nitrate leaching into waterways and increased gaseous emissions of ammonia and nitrous oxide to the atmosphere. Additionally, there is growing interest from pastoral farmers to adopt methods for increasing pasture dry matter yield which use 'natural', environmentally safe plant growth stimulators, together with N-based fertilisers. Such plant growth stimulators include plant hormones and plant growth promotive microorganisms such as bacteria and fungi ('biostimulators', which may produce plant growth-inducing hormones), as well as extracts of seaweed (marine algae). This review presents examples and discusses current uses of plant hormones and biostimulators, applied alone or together with N-based fertilisers, to enhance shoot dry matter yield of forage pasture species, with an emphasis on perennial ryegrass.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.074
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.247 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Science of Food and AgricultureSame topicPlant Growth Enhancement TechniquesFrench-language works237,207