MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129812772 · doi:10.5539/ijb.v4n3p92

The Effects of Fe, Mn and Zn Foliar Application on Yield, Ash and Protein Percentage of Forage Sorghum in Climatic Condition of Esfahan

2012· article· en· W2129812772 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ali Soleymani, Mohamad Hesam Shahrajabian

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Biology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Micronutrient Interactions and Effects
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTiller (botany)ForageAgronomyYield (engineering)Dry weightDry matterNutrientSorghumStem-and-leaf displayFodderChemistryBiologyMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Improving forage yield and quality remains a major concern of the producer. Among the various ways of supplying nutrient to the crops, the efficient utilization of nutrients by the plants is made through foliar application. Foliar application had significant effect on plant height, the number of leaf, the number of tiller, LAI, fresh forage yield, dry leaf yield, dry stem yield, total dry yield, dry leaf weight/dry stem weight ration and ash percentage. Application methods of micronutrients are very important to attain the best absorption. The results of this study demonstrated that, Fe, Zn and Mn had positive effect on yield and quality of forage sorghum. The highest plant height, LAI, Fresh forage yield, dry leaf and stem yield, total dry yield and dry leaf weight/dry stem weight was obtained in Zn+Fe+Mn application. The highest number of tiller was related to combination of Zn and Mn. The maximum ash percentage and appropriate protein percentage also was achieved in application of Zn+Fe+Mn. So, on the basis of the results, it seems that application Zn+Fe+Mn was suitable to gain high forage yield and gain to high quality.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations38
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of BiologySame topicPlant Micronutrient Interactions and EffectsFrench-language works237,207