Recirculation of nutrients in container nursery production
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study evaluated (a) the capacity of a computerized injector to deliver and recirculate nutrients in a container nursery, and (b) plant growth and nutrient status under this regime compared with non-recirculated methods of fertilization, using Dart's Gold ninebark (Physocarpus opulifolius L. 'Dart's Gold') potted in 6-L containers filled with a medium of pine bark, peat, and soil (75, 15, and 10%, by volume). The injector was programmed to deliver NH 4 -N (24 mg L −1 ), NO 3 -N (196 mg L −1 ), P (54 mg L −1 ), and K (235 mg L −1 ) and other nutrients, with or without recirculation. Plants grown with recirculated nutrients were placed on aluminium troughs to collect the leachate, which was pumped back to the injector, recharged [based on a target electrical conductivity (EC) value of 1.85 dS m −1 ], and returned to the crop. Additional plants were grown on a crushed stone base and fertilized (a) by the computerized injector without recirculation, (b) with water soluble Plant-Prod 20-8-20 (200 mg L −1 N; non-recirculated) delivered through a Dosatron proportioner, or (c) with incorporated, controlled release Nutricote 18-6-8, Type 140 (6.5 kg m −3 ). NH 4 -N, NO 3 -N, P, and K concentrations delivered by the computerized injector (recirculated and non-recirculated; mean over six dates, 3 July to 28 August 1997) were 50, 22, 41, and 39%, respectively, lower than targeted values. Electrical conductivity values were not significantly different from targeted. The pH values (6.2 – 6.4) were higher than targeted (6.0). The amounts of N, P, and K used were reduced by between 57 and 77% with recirculation compared to without. Notwithstanding reduced N, P, and K values, plants grew best with recirculated nutrients and least with non-recirculated liquid 20-8-20. Key words: Fertigation, Harrow Fertigation Manager, recycling, woody ornamentals
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".