MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2052493395 · doi:10.4141/p02-110

Response of field peas to phosphate fertilization

2003· article· en· W2052493395 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
R. E. Karamanos, N.A. Flore, J.T. Harapiak

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgronomic Practices and Intercropping Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLoamPhosphatePisumHuman fertilizationAnimal scienceSativumSeedingYield (engineering)MathematicsAgronomyHorticultureBiologySoil waterPhysicsEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canadian Prairie Provinces in general, and Saskatchewan in particular are major producers of peas worldwide. Individual provincial criteria for P application are considerably different from each other. Further introduction of new pea varieties and the adoption of direct seeding practices prompted us to re-evaluate these criteria. To this end, two experiments with field peas (Pisum sativum L. var. Carneval) were carried out between 1994 and 1998 at nine different locations in Alberta. The first experiment was carried out in 1994 and consisted of three trials with six rates of P (0, 4.4, 8.7, 13, 17.5 and 21.8 kg P ha -1 ) in the form of monoammonium phosphate (MAP) (12-51-0). To eliminate the impact of varying N rates along with P, a series of 21 trials and a uniform design that included five rates of P (0, 6.5, 13, 19.5 and 26 kg ha -1 ) in the form of triple super phosphate (0-45-0) and two methods of placement (seed placement or side banding) were subsequently carried out. There was a significant response to P application at all 13 sites of both experiments that contained 10 or less mg of a Modified Kelowna (MK) extractable-P kg -1 of soil. Side banding resulted in significantly higher yield in only three trials. Maximum average yield increase of 645 kg seed ha -1 was obtained with application of 19.5 kg P ha -1 ; it was influenced by soil texture as the magnitude of response was greater on loamy (535 kg seed ha -1 ) than on clay loam soils (285 kg seed ha -1 ). There was no significant yield increase in the trials that contained greater than 10 mg MK-P kg -1 soil. Reduction in plant population was more frequent as a result of seed placement (nine cases with P < 0.1) than side banding in both experiments. The impact of P fertilization on seed moisture was not consistent. The ability to side band or to seed with an increased seed bed utilization may fulfil the need for application of greater rates of P than the ones currently recommended for prairie soils. Key words: Seed placement, side banding, triple super phosphate, monoammonium phosphate

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)0.001
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 score0.753
Threshold uncertainty score0.514

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations13
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicAgronomic Practices and Intercropping SystemsFrench-language works237,207