Enhancing crop yield with the use of N‐based fertilizers co‐applied with plant hormones or growth regulators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Crop yield, vegetative or reproductive, depends on access to an adequate supply of essential mineral nutrients. At the same time, a crop plant's growth and development, and thus yield, also depend on in situ production of plant hormones. Thus optimizing mineral nutrition and providing supplemental hormones are two mechanisms for gaining appreciable yield increases. Optimizing the mineral nutrient supply is a common and accepted agricultural practice, but the co-application of nitrogen-based fertilizers with plant hormones or plant growth regulators is relatively uncommon. Our review discusses possible uses of plant hormones (gibberellins, auxins, cytokinins, abscisic acid and ethylene) and specific growth regulators (glycine betaine and polyamines) to enhance and optimize crop yield when co-applied with nitrogen-based fertilizers. We conclude that use of growth-active gibberellins, together with a nitrogen-based fertilizer, can result in appreciable and significant additive increases in shoot dry biomass of crops, including forage crops growing under low-temperature conditions. There may also be a potential for use of an auxin or cytokinin, together with a nitrogen-based fertilizer, for obtaining additive increases in dry shoot biomass and/or reproductive yield. Further research, though, is needed to determine the potential of co-application of nitrogen-based fertilizers with abscisic acid, ethylene and other growth regulators.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".