MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971112222 · doi:10.1080/00103620009370427

Foliar uptake of volatilized ammonia from surface‐applied urea by spring wheat

2000· article· en· W1971112222 on OpenAlexaff
Jianli Ping, E. Bremer, H. H. Janzen

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUreaAmmoniaChemistryAgronomyNitrogenCropAbsorption (acoustics)Spring (device)Ammonia volatilization from ureaCanopyField experimentField cropAnimal scienceBotanyBiologyMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Large volatile losses of NH3 can occur from surface‐applied urea in semi‐arid areas. Our objective was to determine possible absorption of this volatilized N by the crop canopy under field conditions. At two different times during crop growth, 15N‐enriched urea was surface‐applied at rates equivalent to 100 kg N ha‐1 to soil contained in trays placed between two rows of spring wheat. Seven days after application, the soil in the trays was removed from the field and analyzed for 15N content. Addition of HC1 during soil air drying was necessary to prevent volatile losses of 15N. Of applied urea‐N, 13% was volatilized over seven days at both application times. Of the urea‐N that was volatilized, 15% was absorbed by wheat at the first application time and 7% was absorbed by wheat at the second application time. Plant absorption of urea N (Y, mg) declined with distance from the source (x, cm) following the equation Y=10.95*10(‐0.0142x). About 90% of absorbed N was within the first three wheat rows. Our findings suggest that a significant portion of ammonia volatilized from top‐dressed urea might be captured by plant foliage.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.248
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations25
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunications in Soil Science and Plant AnalysisSame topicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsFrench-language works237,207