MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064707861 · doi:10.4141/p04-134

Influence of formulation of elemental S fertilizer on yield, quality and S uptake of canola seed

2005· article· en· W2064707861 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
S. S. Malhi, E. D. Solberg, M. Nyborg

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicNitrogen and Sulfur Effects on Brassica
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCanolaBrassicaFertilizerChemistrySowingAgronomyDiammonium phosphateAmmoniumAmmonium nitratePotassiumPotashSoil waterEnvironmental scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The rate of S oxidation in elemental S fertilizers to plant-available sulphate-S depends on factors that affect microbial activity, such as soil moisture, temperature, aeration and size of fertilizer granules. Three field experiments were conducted on S-deficient Gray and Dark Gray Luvisol soils (Typic Cryoboralf) during 2000 and 2001 in Saskatchewan (exp. 1 at Porcupine Plain and exp. 3 at Canwood) and Alberta (exp. 2 at Legal) to determine the effects of formulation of elemental S fertilizers on yield, oil, protein and S concentration, S uptake, percent recovery of applied S and N uptake in seed of canola (Brassica napus L. ‘A4573’ at Porcupine Plain and ‘Invigor 2663’ at Legal and Canwood). In exp. 1 (2000 and 2001) and exp. 2 (2000), treatments included five elemental S fertilizers (granular ES-99, ES-95, ES-90 and Biosul-90; and Biosul-50 suspension), granular potassium sulphate and zero-S control. In exp. 3, treatments included eight elemental S fertilizers (granular ES-99, ES-95, ES-90 and Biosul-90; powder Lab fine ES-99.5, ES Settle-47 and ES SPB571-85.8; and Biosul-50 suspension), 21.7% elemental S plus 18.7% sulphate-S (Agrium Plus), blend of granular ES-90 and ammonium sulphate (1:1), granular ammonium sulphate and zero-S control. The S fertilizers were surface-broadcast or sprayed at 15 and 30 kg S ha-1 rates within 2–3 d after sowing in spring. Canola plants in the zero-S treatment showed S deficiency in the growing season, and seed yield increased with sulphate-S fertilizer by 21.8, 1.4, and 3.6 times in exps. 1, 2, and 3, respectively. There was little effect of S fertilizer on protein concentration in seed. Biosul-50 suspension in all experiments and powder forms of elemental S fertilizers, used only in exp. 3, were almost as effective as sulphate-S fertilizers. In all experiments, granular elemental S fertilizers had no or only a very small effect on yield, S uptake, percent recovery of applied S, N uptake, oil concentration, S concentration and protein concentration of canola seed in the first year of application. In the second year of exp. 1, granular elemental S fertilizers tended to increase yield, S uptake, N uptake, oil concentration, and S concentration of canola seed, but none of them produced seed yield or improved other parameters of canola seed comparable with the sulphate-S and elemental S powder or suspension fertilizers. In summary, granular elemental S fertilizers were not effective in increasing canola seed yield and S uptake on S-deficient soils in the first year of application. After the second annual application, most granular elemental S fertilizers tended to correct deficiency of S in canola plants, but improvements in yield and other parameters of seed were still less than the sulphate-S and suspension or powder forms of elemental S fertilizers. Key words: Canola, elemental and sulphate S fertilizers, granular, suspension, oil and protein content, seed yield, S uptake

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 score0.966
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

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 communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations20
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicNitrogen and Sulfur Effects on BrassicaFrench-language works237,207