MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1991612117 · doi:10.1080/00103624.2011.542221

Kura Clover Response to Potassium Fertilization

2011· article· en· W1991612117 on OpenAlexaff
Craig C. Sheaffer, Philippe Séguin

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgronomic Practices and Intercropping Systems
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgronomyForageLotus corniculatusLegumeTrefoilRed CloverPerennial plantBiologyGroundcoverHuman fertilizationHay

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Kura clover (Trifolium ambiguum M.B.) is a persistent perennial forage legume that produces high-quality herbage for grazing, but its response to potassium (K), an essential plant nutrient, is unknown. Our objective was to determine the effect of four dipotassium oxide (K2O) rates on forage yields and stands of Kura clover compared to birdsfoot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus L.) and alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.). There was a significant linear response in Kura clover and alfalfa forage yields to K2O fertilization each year. Averaged over 4 years, Kura clover forage yield increased by 0.024 Mg ha–1 per kg of K2O applied, and the yield response was similar for alfalfa. Birdsfoot trefoil forage yield response to K2O fertilization was less than those of alfalfa and Kura clover. In the first 2 years after seeding, Kura clover forage yields were consistently less than for alfalfa at all rates of K2O fertilizer, but in subsequent years Kura clover yields were similar to or exceeded those of alfalfa. Final groundcover values, an estimate of stand density, of unfertilized (0 K2O rate) Kura clover, birdsfoot trefoil, and alfalfa were 86, 35, and 21%, respectively. Final groundcover of Kura clover and alfalfa was increased by K2O fertilization. We conclude that Kura clover has good persistence with low soil K fertility but stands and yields can be increased by fertilization.

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)0.002
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.248
Threshold uncertainty score0.881

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.283
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 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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunications in Soil Science and Plant AnalysisSame topicAgronomic Practices and Intercropping SystemsFrench-language works237,207