MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023716564 · doi:10.4141/p02-071

Response of winter wheat to nitrogen and phosphate fertilizer placement and time of application

2003· article· en· W2023716564 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
R. E. Karamanos, T. A. Stonehouse, N.A. Flore

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicCrop Yield and Soil Fertility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUreaFertilizerAgronomyNitrogenAmmoniumAmmonium nitrateChemistrySeedingNitrateYield (engineering)Grain yieldAnimal scienceBiologyMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The expansion of direct seeding of crops and the ability to side-band fertilizer has created a number of opportunities, including applying all fertilizer needs of winter wheat at seeding time. The objective of this study was to explore the opportunities for winter wheat grown in the Dark Brown and Black Soil Zones of southern Alberta. In two sets of experiments we compared the effect of fall side-band placement of urea-N to that of spring broadcast of ammonium nitrate-N at rates of 0, 30, 60, 90, and 120 kg N ha -1 , and of fall side-banded 80 kg ha -1 urea-N to that of ammonium nitrate, or liquid urea-ammonium nitrate N on the yield and protein content of winter wheat. We also compared side-banded to seed-placed application of phosphate fertilizer (0, 15, 30, 45 and 60 kg P 2 O 5 ha -1 ). There was a strong response of winter wheat grain yield to N application rate that was directly related to the NO 3 -N level of the soil in the 0–60 cm depth. Fall banded urea resulted in the same or higher yields than all spring treatments. Nitrogen fertilizer lacement had no effect on grain protein levels. Seed-placement and side-banding of P fertilizer rates resulted in equal grain yield increases. Key words: Side banding, seed-placement, urea, ammonium nitrate

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.641
Threshold uncertainty score0.139

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations15
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicCrop Yield and Soil FertilityFrench-language works237,207