Effects of four consecutive annual applications of elemental S and sulphate-S fertilizers on yield, S uptake and seed quality of wheat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A field experiment from 1999 to 2002 was carried out near Tisdale in northeastern Saskatchewan on a S-deficient Gray Luvisol (Typic Cryoboralf) soil to compare the effects of elemental S and sulphate-S fertilizers on yield, seed protein, total S concentration, S uptake, and recovery of applied S in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) and residual SO4-S in soil. Treatments were combinations of 10 and 20 kg S ha-1 rates applied in autumn and spring for two granular bentonitic elemental S fertilizers (ES- 90 and ES-95), one fertilizer containing both elemental S and sulphate-S (Agrium Plus), and ammonium sulphate, plus a zero-S control. The S fertilizers were surface-broadcast and all plots had a preseeding rotovation in spring to incorporate fertilizers into the soil. Seed (1 yr) and straw (3 yr) yield, seed protein concentration (1 yr), and total S concentration and S uptake in seed and straw (all years except uptake of S in seed in 2001 and 2002) showed significant response to S fertilization. Ammonium sulphate and Agrium Plus were generally more effective compared with the elemental S fertilizers, when there was a significant response to sulphate-S containing fertilizers. Autumn application of elemental S fertilizers was sometimes more effective than spring application, while an opposite trend was observed for sulphate-S containing fertilizers in some cases. The increase in S rate from 10 to 20 kg S ha-1 tended to increase the measured wheat parameters in many elemental S treatments, but for sulphate-S fertilizers the effect was less pronounced. The concentration of total S in seed and straw was relatively more responsive to S fertilization than yield and S uptake, particularly for seed. The effect of S fertilization on wheat was less pronounced in drought years, particularly on seed yield, suggesting that drought rather than S availability was limiting wheat growth. There was some build-up of residual SO4-S in the 0-60 cm depth of soil in many S fertilizer treatments after four successive applications, but there was little or no difference in soil SO4-S between elemental S and sulphate-S fertilizers. In conclusion, the results from four successive annual applications of elemental S and sulphate-S fertilizers in autumn and spring on the same area indicate that bentonitic granular elemental S fertilizers had comparatively less influence on wheat than granular sulphate-S fertilizers and further research to improve the effectiveness of these elemental S fertilizers is suggested. Key words: Elemental S, fertilizer, protein, seed quality, sulphate-S, wheat, yield
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".