MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2128463626 · doi:10.3390/agronomy5030291

Response of Snap Bean Cultivars to Rhizobium Inoculation under Dryland Agriculture in Ethiopia

2015· article· en· W2128463626 on OpenAlexafffund
Hussien Beshir, Frances L. Walley, Rosalind Bueckert, Bunyamin Tar’an

Bibliographic record

VenueAgronomy · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLegume Nitrogen Fixing Symbiosis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersHawassa UniversityInternational Development Research Centre
KeywordsPhaseolusPoint of deliveryCultivarRhizobiaMicrobial inoculantNitrogen fixationBiologyInoculationAgronomyRhizobiumSnapSymbiosisYield (engineering)HorticultureBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High yield in snap bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) production requires relatively high nitrogen (N) inputs. However, little information is available on whether the use of rhizobial inoculants for enhanced biological dinitrogen fixation can provide adequate N to support green pod yield. The objectives of this study were to test the use of rhizobia inoculation as an alternative N source for snap bean production under rain fed conditions, and to identify suitable cultivars and appropriate agro-ecology for high pod yield and N2 fixation in Ethiopia. The study was conducted in 2011 and 2012 during the main rainy season at three locations. The treatments were factorial combinations of three N treatments (0 and 100 kg·N·ha−1, and Rhizobium etli (HB 429)) and eight snap bean cultivars. Rhizobial inoculation and applied N increased the total yield of snap bean pod by 18% and 42%, respectively. Cultivar Melkassa 1 was the most suitable for a reduced input production system due to its greatest N2 fixation and high pod yield. The greatest amount of fixed N was found at Debre Zeit location. We concluded that N2 fixation achieved through rhizobial inoculation can support the production of snap bean under rain fed conditions in Ethiopia.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.687
Threshold uncertainty score0.201

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations29
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAgronomySame topicLegume Nitrogen Fixing SymbiosisFrench-language works237,207