Sulphur fertilizer and tillage effects on canola seed quality in the Black soil zone of western Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Field studies in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta over 3 yr evaluated immediate and residual effects of source, timing and placement of su lphur (S) fertilizers on canola quality under reduced (RT) and conventional tillage (CT). Oil concentration of canola seed increased and chlorophyll content decreased with application of plant-available forms of S fertilizer if soils were deficient in available sulphate-S. Therefore, canola seed quality was improved by correction of S deficiencies. The magnitude and consistency of fertilizer effects reflected the sulphate availability of the fertilizer source applied, with ammonium sulphate having a greater effect than the bentonite-elemental S product, Tiger 90®, in the year of application. Effects on seed N concentration were inconsistent, but decreases in seed N concentration occasionally occurred with correction of an S deficiency, reflecting an inverse relationship between seed yield or seed oil concentration and seed N concentration. Seed S concentration generally increased with increases in available sulphur. Application of ammonium sulphate in the preceding wheat crop provided residual sulphate-S for canola, leading to increased oil and seed S concentration, and decreased chlorophyll and seed N concentration. Tillage system had little influence on canola quality, with RT occasionally reducing oil concentration and increasing chlorophyll and seed N content. The response of seed quality to S fertilization was similar under CT and RT. Sulphate-S sources consistently improved canola quality on S-deficient fields. Key words: Bentonite S, chlorophyll, elemental S, green seed. zero oil, protein, zero tillage
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".