Application method of nitrogen fertilizer affects weed growth and competition with winter wheat
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The management of crop fertilization may be an important component of integrated weed management systems. A field study was conducted to determine the effect of various application methods of nitrogen (N) fertilizer on weed growth and winter wheat yield in a zero‐tillage production system. Nitrogen fertilizer was applied at 50 kg ha −1 at the time of planting winter wheat over four consecutive years to determine the annual and cumulative effects. The nitrogen treatments consisted of granular ammonium nitrate applied broadcast on the soil surface, banded 10 cm deep between every crop row, banded 10 cm deep between every second crop row, and point‐injected liquid ammonium nitrate placed between every second crop row at 20 cm intervals and 10 cm depth. An unfertilized control was also included. Density, shoot N concentration and the biomass of weeds was often lower with subsurface banded or point‐injected N than with broadcast N. The winter wheat density was similar with all N fertilizer application methods but wheat shoot N concentration and yield were consistently higher with banded or point‐injected N compared with broadcast N. In several instances, the surface broadcast N did not increase the weed‐infested wheat yield above that of the unfertilized control, indicating that it was the least preferred N application method. Depending on the weed species, the weed seedbank at the conclusion of the 4 year study was reduced by 29–62% with point‐injected N compared with broadcast N. Information gained from this study will be used to develop more integrated weed management programs for winter wheat.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 it