Effect of Bio-phosphate and Chemical Phosphorus Fertilizer Accompanied with Foliar Application of Micronutrients on Yield, Quality and Phosphorus and Zinc Concentration of Maize
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Field experiment was conducted at Kerman Agricultural and Natural Resources Research Centre (Iran) during 2008-2009 to evaluate the effect of bio-fertilizer, phosphorus and foliar application of micronutrients on dry matter accumulation, yield, and phosphorus and zinc concentration of maize (Zea mays L.). A split plot experiment based on randomized complete blocks design (RCBD) with four replications was followed in the study. The micronutrients foliar application in two levels (foliar application and non foliar application) were the main plots, and four levels of phosphate (T1: 0 (no fertilizer), T2: 100 kg ha-1 P2O5, T3: 100g bio-phosphate, T4: 100g bio-phosphate with 50 kg ha-1 P2O5) as the sub plots. Results showed that micronutrients foliar application and biological and chemical phosphorus fertilizers had a significant influence on dry matter accumulation. The maximum dry matter accumulation was obtained by applying 50 kg/ha P2O5 plus bio-fertilizer. Grain yield, 1000-seed weight and protein content of grain were significantly affected by micronutrients and phosphorus fertilizers treatments. Micronutrients foliar application and phosphorus fertilizers interaction had no significantly effect on grain yield, 1000-seed weight and grain protein content. Grain phosphorus and zinc concentration where significantly increased by application of micronutrients and phosphorus fertilizers.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".