MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2070438568 · doi:10.4141/cjss09013

Effects of soil limestone and foliar manganese and zinc applications on field cauliflower growth and element contents

2010· article· en· W2070438568 on OpenAlexaffvenue
C. G. Kowalenko, Milan Ihnat

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Soil Science · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Micronutrient Interactions and Effects
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsManganeseLimeZincDry matterMicronutrientChemistryNutrientPotassiumField experimentSoil waterGrowing seasonPhosphorusAgronomyOrganic matterHorticultureAnimal scienceEnvironmental scienceBiologyMetallurgySoil scienceMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A trial was conducted in a field where a previous study suggested that a deficiency of manganese (Mn) or zinc (Zn) was created by the application of limestone, with the objective to confirm whether lime-induced deficiency is a potential problem in coastal British Columbia acidic soils. The trial involved the application and incorporation of limestone at two rates (9 and 19 Mg ha -1 ) in addition to a control with no limestone, and five foliar applications of Mn and Zn. The foliar applications included a control, Mn at two rates (2.3 and 4.5 kg ha -1 ), Zn at one rate (2.3 kg ha -1 ) and a combination of Mn and Zn, both at 2.3 kg ha -1 . The trial was conducted at the same location over seven growing seasons (1979-1985), with the cauliflower grown in five of those years. The plot was fallowed in 1981 and 1983. The limestone treatments were applied in the spring of 1979, and again in the summer of 1981, while the foliar applications were applied to the plant each cropped season. Limestone increased plant dry matter yield in three years, decreased it in one, and had no effect in the other. The micronutrient applications did not affect dry matter yield in any of the years. Chemical analyses on the plants showed that limestone increased Ca and decreased Mn and Zn concentrations. The foliar applications increased plant Mn and Zn concentrations. Limestone, but not the micronutrient, applications influenced other element concentrations, with decreased concentrations of potassium, magnesium, sodium, strontium and rubidium. Iron and copper concentrations were not influenced by limestone applications. The decreased concentrations of nutrients could not account for the yield reduction by limestone applications in the one year, since concentrations of the nutrients measured in that year were not significantly different to concentrations in years when yields were increased. Further, basal applications of nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, magnesium and boron) had been applied to ensure that non-treatment nutrients were not deficient. Although monthly weather conditions were similar for one year of increased yield and one year of decreased yield, the influence of weather on the variable response by the crop could not be discounted as there could have been adverse weather conditions at critical stages of plant growth. Strontium and rubidium tended to respond to limestone similar to calcium and potassium, showing that their measurements have potential to further evaluate nutrient dynamics since they have characteristics similar to calcium and potassium, respectively. This field trial showed that limestone applications had many and variable effects on the availability of numerous nutrients and associated elements on cauliflower in addition to Mn and Zn. This showed the high degree of complexity of limestone applications on acidic soils.Key words: Liming, soil pH, Ca, nutrient elements, nutrient analogs

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.578
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.193 · 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

Citations7
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Soil ScienceSame topicPlant Micronutrient Interactions and EffectsFrench-language works237,207