MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2067432375 · doi:10.4141/p04-133

Influence of four successive annual applications of elemental S and sulphate-S fertilizers on yield, S uptake and seed quality of canola

2005· article· en· W2067432375 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
S. S. Malhi

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicNitrogen and Sulfur Effects on Brassica
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCanolaStrawAgronomyLoamBrassicaFertilizerChemistryAmmoniumYield (engineering)Soil waterEnvironmental scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effectiveness of elemental S fertilizers in increasing crop yield in S-deficient soils depends on the rate at which S is oxidized to sulphate in soil for plant uptake. A 4-yr field experiment (1999 to 2002) was conducted with canola (Brassica napus L. or Brassica rapa L.) on a S-deficient loamy sand Gray Luvisol soil near Tisdale in northeastern Saskatchewan to determine the effectiveness of elemental S and sulphate-S fertilizers applied annually at different times and S rates on seed and straw yield, oil and protein concentration in seed, concentration and uptake of S in seed and straw, amount of residual sulphate-S in soil, and recovery of applied S in plant, soil and plant + soil. The S fertilizer treatments included granular types of two bentonite -elemental S fertilizers (ES-90 and ES-95), one sulphate-S (ammonium sulphate), one containing elemental S and sulphate-S (Agrium Plus), and a zero-S control. The S fertilizers were surface-broadcast at 10 or 20 kg S ha-1 rates in the previous autumn or in spring, and incorporated into the soil a few days prior to seeding in May. Canola plants in the zero-S control showed S deficiency in the growing season. Seed yield, straw yield, oil concentration in seed, and S concentration and uptake in seed and straw increased with the sulphate-S fertilizer in all years. There was no significant increase in seed yield from the elemental S fertilizers in 1999, though autumn application tended to give slightly greater seed yield than the spring application. Elemental S fertilizers usually increased seed yield and S uptake significantly over the zero-S control, but yield and S uptake were less than the sulphate-S fertilizer in most cases in 2000, in many cases in 2001 and in some cases in 2002, especially when the S fertilizers were applied in spring. Autumn-applied elemental S usually had greater seed yield and S uptake than the spring-applied elemental S in 2000, 2001 and 2002. On the other hand, autumn-applied ammonium sulphate produced or tended to produce lower seed yield and S uptake than spring-applied ammonium sulphate in some cases. There was little effect of S fertilizer application on protein concentration in seed. In summary, the results indicated that elemental S fertilizers were not effective in increasing canola yield and S uptake on the S-deficient soil in the first year of application. The elemental S fertilizers became effective in the second to fourth year, but seed yield and S uptake were still less than those obtained with sulphate-S fertilizer, particularly when the S fertilizers were applied in spring. The findings suggest the need for research on best management practices to improve effectiveness of elemental S fertilizers. Key words: Canola, elemental and sulphate S fertilizers, oil and protein concentration, seed yield, sulphur 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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations17
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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