MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086234471 · doi:10.5539/jas.v4n6p236

Dynamics of Zinc Fractions, Availability to Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) and Residual Effect on Succeeding Maize (Zea mays L.) in Inceptisols

2012· article· en· W2086234471 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mukesh Kumar, Fozia Qureshi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Micronutrient Interactions and Effects
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsZincInceptisolChemistryShootAgronomyChelationDry matterNuclear chemistrySoil waterInorganic chemistryBiologyOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study was to compare the transformation, redistribution, availability and relative effectiveness of Zn from different fertilizer sources viz. Zn-DTPA (Zinc chelated with di-ethylene tri-amine penta-acitic acid), Zn-EDTA (Zinc chelated with ethylene di-amine tetra-acetic acid), Zn-CH (Zinc chelated with a mixture of DTPA & EDTA) and ZnSO4.7H2O (Zinc sulphate hepta hydrate) applied at various zinc levels (5, 10 and 20 mg kg-1) to an Inceptisols in a greenhouse experiment. The results of the greenhouse study showed that the application of three zinc sources significantly increased wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) and succeeding maize (Zea mays L.) dry matter yield and shoot/root ratio compared with the control at increased levels of zinc. Positive, significant correlations were obtained between the zinc concentration in plant and the available zinc as well as the first two sequentially extracted Zn fractions (water soluble plus exchangeable and organically complexed). The positive and significant effect of zinc levels was also found on plant nitrogen and potassium. The zinc fractions in the soil after harvest of both crops were positively and significantly correlated with each other.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.808
Threshold uncertainty score0.216

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations18
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicPlant Micronutrient Interactions and EffectsFrench-language works237,207