MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1978606087 · doi:10.4141/p01-184

Effectiveness of sulphate-S fertilization at different growth stages for yield, seed quality and S uptake of canola

2002· article· en· W1978606087 on OpenAlexfundvenueaboutno aff
S. S. Malhi, K. S. Gill

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicNitrogen and Sulfur Effects on Brassica
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanola Council of Canada
KeywordsCanolaAgronomySeedingFertilizerBoltingHuman fertilizationBrassicaGrowing seasonSoil waterYield (engineering)SowingCropBiologyHorticultureMaterials scienceEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canola ( Brassica napus L. and B. rapa L.) is an important cash crop in the Prairie Provinces of Canada. The majority of canola is grown in the Parkland zone where many soils are deficient or potentially deficient in plant-available S for optimum seed yield of canola. Because canola has high S requirements and S is immobile in plants, its deficiency can occur any time during the growing season and drastically reduce canola seed yield, particularly on soils fertilized well with N and P. The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of sulphate-S fertilizer (potassium sulphate) applied using various application methods at seeding and during the growing season for yield, seed quality and S uptake of canola on S-deficient soils. Six field experiments (two sites per year from 1998 to 2000) were conducted on Grey Luvisol soils in north-eastern Saskatchewan. Fertilizer treatments were no fertilizer, N (120 kg N ha-1) alone at seeding, S (30 kg S ha-1) alone at seeding, and N (120 kg N ha-1) at seeding + S (15 and 30 kg S ha-1) at seeding, bolting and flowering stages of canola. Methods of S application were surface broadcast and incorporated into the soil, sidebanded and seedrow placed at seeding, and topdressed and foliar sprayed at bolting and early flowering. Canola at all experimental sites showed severe S deficiency symptoms. Compared to N alone, N + S fertilization increased yield, oil content and S uptake of seed in all cases, increased yield and S uptake of seed + straw in most cases, while protein content of seed and S index (ratio of S uptake in seed to S uptake in seed + straw) were not influenced consistently. A trend of seeding > bolting > flowering time of S applications was generally shown by yield and S uptake of seed and seed + straw, and by S index. There were no noticeable differences among treatments applied at seeding. Topdressing at bolting and flowering tended to produce less seed yield than foliar-applied S in few cases and method of S application had no consistent effect on other parameters. Increasing the rate from 15 to 30 kg S ha-1 generally increased yield and S uptake of seed and seed + straw, but had no consistent effect on oil and protein contents in seed and S index. Fertilizer S alone tended to increase yield, oil content and S uptake of seed but had no effect on seed protein content. However, application of N alone tended to reduce yield, oil content and S uptake of seed while it had an inconsistent effect on yield and S uptake of seed + straw and S index. In conclusion, application of sulphate-S fertilizer on S-deficient soils improved yield, seed quality and S uptake of canola, with applications at seeding generally more effective than at bolting and early flowering stages. The results suggest that application of sulphate-S can correct S deficiency in canola if it occurs in the growing season, and restore seed yield substantially at bolting and moderately at early flowering. Key words: Application times, canola, placement methods, seed quality, S index, S rates

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.249
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 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

Citations65
Published2002
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicNitrogen and Sulfur Effects on BrassicaFrench-language works237,207