MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1976799690 · doi:10.2134/agronj2007.0361

Yield and Nutrient Export of Grain Corn Fertilized with Raw and Treated Liquid Swine Manure

2008· article· en· W1976799690 on OpenAlexaff
Martin H. Chantigny, Denis A. Angers, Gilles Bélanger, Philippe Rochette, Nikita S. Eriksen‐Hamel, Shabtai Bittman, Katherine M. Buckley, Daniel I. Massé, Marc‐Olivier Gasser

Bibliographic record

VenueAgronomy Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil and Water Nutrient Dynamics
Canadian institutionsInstitut de Recherche et de Développement en AgroenvironnementAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLoamFertilizerAgronomyManureNutrientChemistrySoil waterEnvironmental scienceBiologySoil science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Treatment of liquid swine manure (LSM) is an option to improve nutrient management. Mineral fertilizer, raw LSM, and LSM treated by anaerobic digestion, flocculation, filtration, or natural decantation were sidedressed (100 kg N ha −1 ) to grain corn ( Zea mays L.) on a clay and a loam soil. Over 3 yr, corn grain yield (6 to 11 Mg ha −1 ), N export (83 to 176 kg ha −1 ), and P export (19 to 40 kg ha −1 ) were similar among LSM types and between LSMs and mineral fertilizer. This was attributed to the immediate incorporation of LSM to minimize N volatilization. Treated LSMs reduced P input to soil by 3 to 24 kg ha −1 , compared with raw LSM. This reduced corn P export by 2 to 4 kg ha −1 on the clay soil, but had no effect on the loam soil. Soil NO 3 content after harvest was higher with the mineral fertilizer (19–31 kg NO 3 –N ha −1 ) than with LSMs (13–20 kg NO 3 –N ha −1 ) in the clay soil, but was similar for all treatments in the loam soil. We conclude that when sidedressed to corn and immediately incorporated, raw and treated LSMs have a fertilizer value similar to the mineral fertilizer. Moreover, the risk of postharvest NO 3 accumulation with the raw and treated LSMs was similar to mineral fertilizer on the loam and lower on the clay.

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)0.000
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.356

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.185
Teacher spread0.174 · 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

Citations96
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAgronomy JournalSame topicSoil and Water Nutrient DynamicsFrench-language works237,207