The effect of nitrogen and boron fertilizer applications on Willamette red raspberry growth, and on applied and other nutrients in the plant and soil over two growing seasons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of three single, spring fertilizer treatments (complete, complete minus N and complete minus B) on raspberry plants were examined in detail over two seasons. Phosphorus, K, Ca, Mg, Na, Cu, Mn, Fe, Zn in addition to N and B were measured in various plant parts and soil samples monthly. There were no fertilizer effects on berry yield, but treatment-year primocane stem and residualyear floricane stems and laterals were smaller without N. Minus B reduced application-year lateral weights. Soil nitrate concentrations were consistently low without N showing plants used soil organic N as it was mineralized. Soil nitrate concentrations were greater with than without N during the first growing season only. Above-ground plant uptake of the 134 kg N ha -1 application was 34% over the 2 yr. Leaf tissue concentrations were too dynamic for plant N status evaluation, but floricane stem N concentrations showed promise. Hot water extract B in soil responded to B application, but varied with time of sampling. Significant soil B remained in the soil into the second year, apparently not leached as readily as nitrate. Leaf B concentrations were too variable over time for plant B status evaluation, but floricane laterals showed promise. The treatments influenced concentrations of elements other than N and B, but only above-ground P and Mn accumulations were affected significantly. Detailed plant and soil analyses were necessary to fully evaluate treatment effects on this complex-growing perennial crop. Key words: Raspberry yield, raspberry N accumulation, raspberry B accumulation, raspberry nutrient dynamics, apparent N recovery, apparent B recovery, soil nitrate test, nitrate leaching, soil extractable B, residual effects
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".