Sulphur fertilizer and tillage management of canola and wheat in western Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A 3-yr field study in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta evaluated immediate and residual effects of source, timing and placement of sulphur fertilizers on canola (Brassica napus L.) and wheat (Triticum aestivumL.) under conventional (CT) and reduced tillage (RT). Sulphur fertilization did not increase wheat yield, even when soil sulphate was low. Ammonium sulphate (AS) and ammonium thiosulphate (ATS) increased canola yield in 2 of 3 yr at the Saskatchewan site while elemental S and Tiger 90™ did not. Residual S from AS and ATS increased canola yield on S-deficient soils in the second and third crops after application. Canola yield on the S-deficient soil was lower where broadcast Tiger 90 rather than AS or ATS was applied the previous year, indicating that broadcast Tiger 90 oxidation was insufficient to support canola yield in the second crop year after application. Banding or seed-placing Tiger 90 delayed oxidation further. In the third crop after application, canola yield was similar with broadcast Tiger 90, AS or ATS but was lower with seed-placed or banded Tiger 90 than AS or broadcast Tiger 90. Small particle size and broadcast application of elemental S are needed to hasten oxidation of S to sulphate-S. Key words: Elemental S, Bentonite S, zero tillage, reduced tillage
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".