Canola response to boron in Canadian prairie soils
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research on the boron (B) fertility and B fertilizer practices in the Canadian prairie soils is very limited. Soil testing methodologies, associated criteria and fertilizer practices developed in other parts of the world have been adopted. Use of hot-water-extractable (HW) B as an extraction of available B in western Canadian soils is thought to be a good, simple and efficient technique. A project was carried out in the three Prairie Provinces that included a number of aspects of B fertility. Hence, soils that according to established HW B criteria were deemed to be either deficient or marginal in B were selected, and a series of 22 trials in seven separate experiments was carried out. The effects of method of placement (broadcast and incorporation and seed-placement) and associated rates (0 to 5.1 kg B ha-1) as well as foliar application of common granular and liquid B products on the seed yield, plant tissue levels of young canola plants and oil content of canola seed were evaluated. There was no significant yield increase in canola seed yield in any of the 22 experiments, although levels of HW B as low as 0.15 mg kg-1 were encountered. There was a significant correlation between B in canola tissue at growth stage BBCH 30–39 and the rate of applied B; however, tissue levels were not significantly correlated to HW B levels in soil samples taken at the time of tissue sampling. Thus, soil properties, especially soil organic matter, play an important role in determining the fate of applied B in the soil-plant system. We were not able to calibrate the HW B soil levels against the relative yield of canola from 18 strip trials carried out in a preliminary survey and the 22 replicated trials. Thus, it is concluded that hot-water extractable B is not an effective diagnostic tool for determining the B status of western Canadian prairie soils. Key words: Hot-water-extractable B, plant tissue B, oil content, critical level, seed yield
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".