MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1983286353 · doi:10.4141/cjps08189

Effectiveness of seed-soaked Cu, autumn- versus spring-applied Cu, and Cu-treated P fertilizer on seed yield of wheat and residual nitrate-N for a Cu-deficient soil

2009· article· en· W1983286353 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
S. S. Malhi

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Micronutrient Interactions and Effects
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLoamSeedingChemistryFertilizerAgronomyYield (engineering)Soil waterMetallurgyMaterials scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Three field experiments were conducted from 2005 to 2007 to determine the effects of seed-soaking in Cu EDTA liquid, autumn versus spring application of granular Cu sulphate, and granular Cu-treated monoammonium phosphate (MAP) fertilizer on seed yield and Cu uptake of wheat, and residual nitrate-N in the soil profile on a Cu-deficient Dark Gray Luvisol (Boralf) sandy loam near Porcupine Plain, Saskatchewan, Canada. In exp. 1, seed soaked in Cu EDTA liquid at 0.04 to 0.16 kg Cu ha -1 increased seed yield substantially, in spite of a significant reduction in plant emergence in most cases. But, seed yield increases from the seed soaked in Cu EDTA liquid were lower compared with foliar-applied Cu EDTA liquid at 0.50 to 1.00 kg Cu ha -1 , or compared with surface spray-broadcast and incorporation of Cu EDTA liquid into soil in spring prior to seeding at 4.0 kg Cu ha -1 . Seed yield trend was two foliar applications of Cu EDTA liquid > soil surface spray-broadcast and incorporated Cu EDTA liquid > one foliar application of Cu EDTA liquid > seed-soaked Cu EDTA liquid. In exp. 2, for granular Cu sulphate in the first year, only previous autumn application increased seed yield significantly when applied at 4.0 kg ha -1 . For spring application, seed yield was highest when solution Cu EDTA at 4.0 kg ha -1 was spray-broadcast on the soil surface and incorporated into soil prior to seeding. In exp. 3, application of granular Cu-treated MAP fertilizer had no significant effect on seed yield. The Cu uptake by seed usually followed`the same trends as seed yield. In all experiments, the partial factor productivity (seed yield per unit of nutrient applied) was much higher when N was applied in combination with Cu (15.3 to 29.8 kg seed kg -1 applied N ha -1 ) compared with N alone (5.7 to 7.7 kg seed kg -1 applied N ha -1 ). In exp. 1, the amounts of residual nitrate-N in the 0-90 cm soil profile after three annual N fertilizer applications were 3.3 to 4.0 times higher in the zero-Cu control than in the Cu fertilizer treatments. Overall, seed yields of wheat were highest with two foliar applications of Cu at low rates, or with soil spray/broadcast and incorporation of solution Cu in spring at a relatively high rate, which is also expected to have long-term residual effects on crop yield. For granular Cu sulphate, the results indicated that deficiency of Cu in wheat can be corrected by surface-broadcast application at a relatively high rate in the previous autumn, followed by its incorporation into soil in the spring at seeding. The results also indicate that by soaking wheat seed in Cu EDTA solution at a very low rate, Cu deficiency in wheat can be prevented and seed yield increased, but less than the other Cu treatments. Accumulation and downward movement of residual nitrate-N in the soil profile can be minimized by preventing Cu deficiency in wheat crop with combined application of Cu and N fertilizers. Key words: Application time, Cu source, foliar application, granular Cu, growth stage, placement method, rate of Cu, seed-soaked Cu, soil incorporation, solution Cu

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.768
Threshold uncertainty score0.607

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations17
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicPlant Micronutrient Interactions and EffectsFrench-language works237,207