Quality Evaluation of Different Forms of Compost and Their Effect in Comparison with Inorganic Fertilizers on Growth and Yield Attributes of Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The core objective of conducting the current study was to evaluate the chemical compositions of different composts and their effect on wheat yield. Mineral matter content, ash and moisture were higher in all enriched composts and vermicompost in comparison to conventional compost whereas as total organic carbon, water soluble carbon and C:N ratio were higher in conventional compost.There was higher variation in the content of nutrients in different composts as that of the conventional one but nitrogen and phosphorus were higher in nitrogen enriched phosphorous-compost and phosphorous enriched vermicompost. Zinc was higher in nitrogen enriched phosphorous-compost, vermicompost and phosphorous enriched vermicompost whereas manganese was higher in vermicompost and phosphorous enriched vermicompost. Biochemical quality stated that conventional compost had lesser amount of total phenol, alkaline and acid phosphatase enzyme activity but higher dehydrogenase activity than those of enriched composts. The more dehydrogenase activity in conventional compost is an indicator of partial decomposition. The time period of decomposition was almost similar (120 ± 5 days) among the enriched composts, whereas in case of conventional compost, decomposition period was 160 ± 10 days.Crop yield was lower in conventional compost but highest yield was obtained by supplying nitrogen enriched phosphorous-compost and phosphorous enriched vermicompost, nitrogen enriched phosphorous-compost provided yield at par to inorganic fertilizer application at 90 kg ha-1 N, 20 kg ha-1 P and 20 kg ha-1 K.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".