Gypsum—An Alternative to Chemical Fertilizers in Lowbush Blueberry Production
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY Five experimental trials were established in commercial lowbush blueberry (Vaccinium angustifolium Ait.) fields in eastern Canada and monitored over two cropping cycles to determine the value of gypsum as a soil amendment. Lowbush blueberry plants were treated each cropping cycle with either: (1) no application (control), (2) 10-10-10 fertilizer applied at 300 kg/ha (268 lb/acre), (3) gypsum applied at 4 t/ha (3572 lb/acre), or (4) the combination of (2) and (3). In the first cropping cycle, the application of gypsum and gypsum with fertilizer significantly increased tissue concentrations of N, P, K, Ca, Mn, and S in comparison to the control and fertilizer only treatments. Tissue K, Ca, Mn, and S were significantly increased in the second cropping cycle with gypsum application. Soil pH was reduced in the second cropping cycle with gypsum application. Gypsum with fertilizer increased stem length, live buds, total buds, and total blossoms in the first cropping cycle in comparison to the control. The treatments had no significant effect on marketable 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".