Crop response to current and previous season applications of phosphorus as affected by crop sequence and tillage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Field studies were conducted over a 4-yr period at two locations in western Manitoba, Canada, to evaluate the effect of phosphorus (P) fertilizer management on crop growth as affected by tillage system through a 2-yr cropping sequence. In the first phase of the cropping sequence, canola (Brassica napus L.), a non-mycorrhizal crop, and spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), a mycorrhizal crop, were grown under conventional (CT) and reduced (RT) systems, with 0, 11 and 22 kg P ha -1 applied as monoammonium phosphate (MAP). In the second phase of the sequence, flax (Linum usitatissimum L.) was seeded following the spring wheat or canola, with application of 0 or 11 kg P ha -1 as MAP. Phosphorus application increased the early-season biomass, P concentration, and P accumulation of canola and wheat and the seed yield of canola. Tillage system had no consistent effects on growth, P concentration or uptake, or seed yields of canola or wheat, nor were P by tillage system interactions observed. Early-season biomass production and seed yields of flax were relatively unaffected by P fertilization whether applied in the same season as flax or in the previous season, although early-season P concentration and P accumulation were increased when P fertilizer was applied to the flax. Of the factors evaluated in this study, preceding crop had the greatest influence on flax growth with flax establishment, early-season biomass, and P accumulation, and seed yield all being significantly greater when flax was seeded after wheat than after canola. Key words: Crop rotation, fertilization, monoammonium phosphate, flax, wheat, canola
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".