MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1965247414 · doi:10.5539/jas.v7n2p68

Corn Silage (Zea mays L.) Response to Zinc Foliar Spray Concentration When Grown on Sandy Soil

2015· article· en· W1965247414 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Saad Drissi, Abdelhadi Aït Houssa, Ahmed Bamouh, Mohamed Benbella

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Micronutrient Interactions and Effects
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSilageZincAgronomyShootChemistryZea maysYield (engineering)Plant growthHorticultureBiologyMaterials scienceMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study is to identify an adequate zinc (Zn) foliar spray concentration which corrects Zn deficiency without disrupting other plant mineral contents, enhances plant growth, and thereby corn silage yield when grown on sandy soil. A field experiment was conducted using five Zn foliar spray concentrations (w/v): 0.03%, 0.07%, 0.10%, 0.14% and 0.18%. Zn sulfate (ZnSO4. 7H2O) was used as a source of Zn. Zn foliar application was realized at two growth stages (6-7 and 9-10 leaf stages). A treatment without Zn foliar spray was maintained as control. The results showed a quadratic response of corn silage towards Zn foliar spray concentrations, in which 0.09% was the optimum value for overcoming Zn deficiency. Such level increased shoot Zn concentration at harvest from 15 mg kg-1 to 21.8 mg kg-1, didn’t decrease plant mineral content below critical levels, enhanced plant growth and raised silage yield by 49.4% compared to control. On the other hand, Zn foliar spray concentration up to 0.10% induced visible leaf damage, growth inhibition and a decrease of 26% in silage yield compared to Zn foliar applications at 0.09%.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.619
Threshold uncertainty score0.285

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations23
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicPlant Micronutrient Interactions and EffectsFrench-language works237,207