MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2044734574 · doi:10.4141/p03-090

The effect of foliar copper application on grain yield and quality of wheat

2004· article· en· W2044734574 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
R. E. Karamanos, Q. Pomarenski, Tee Boon Goh, N.A. Flore

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural Science and Fertilization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCultivarCitric acidCopperShootGrowing seasonChemistryYield (engineering)AgronomyHorticultureSoil waterBiologyMaterials scienceFood science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Available Cu concentrations in prairie soils (DTPA-extractable Cu) are extremely variable, thus resulting in areas within fields that are Cu deficient. These areas are difficult to characterize by a soil test based on a composite field sample; thus, when they are identified in the growing season, foliar Cu application possibly represents the only method of correcting them. A project, carried out over a period of 8 yr that consisted of four experiments and a total of 22 trials, was designed to ascertain whether foliar Cu applications indeed provide a satisfactory means of correcting Cu deficiency. Experiments included comparison of foliar applications at Feekes growth stages 6 (first node of stem visible at base of shoot) and 6 plus 10 (sheath of last leaf completely grown out) to soil broadcast and incorporation of 4 to 5.5 kg Cu ha-1 as copper sulphate (CuSO4·5H2O) or seed placement of 2 kg Cu ha-1 in three forms (two oxysulphates and one sulphate); foliar application of a variety of products representing different chemistries (chelate, lignin sulphonate, humic acid, oxychloride and citric acid) on a number of wheat cultivars at Feekes growth stage 10 or one cultivar at Feekes growth stages 2 (beginning of tillering), 6, 10 and 2 plus 10. Foliar applications appear to provide a solution to Cu deficiency that is identified during the growing season. However, foliar applications were not always as effective as broadcast and incorporation of at least 4 kg Cu ha-1 in the form of CuSO4·5H2O, which still remains the preferred method to correct a Cu deficiency. Foliar application at Feekes growth stage 2 was ineffective, whereas a single foliar application at Feekes growth stage 10 was not as satisfactory as a single one at Feekes growth stage 6. Thus, the latter stage appears to be preferable; however, maximum grain yield in some cases was obtained by the combination of two foliar Cu applications, one each at Feekes growth stages 6 and 10. Responses of wheat to foliar Cu application were obtained on soils that contained DTPA-extractable Cu concentration of less than 0.4 mg kg-1. Foliar Cu applications did not have an appreciable effect on grain quality parameters, such as hectolitre weight, moisture or protein content. Key words: DTPA-extractable, Feekes growth stage, deficient, marginal, plant tissue

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations37
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicAgricultural Science and FertilizationFrench-language works237,207