Zinc Fertilization Methods on Zinc Absorption and Translocation in Wheat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To increase grain Zn concentration of wheat grown on calcareous soil, field and hydroponic culture experimentswere conducted to investigate the effects of various Zn fertilization methods on Zn absorption and translocationin wheat. A completely randomized block design was used in the field experiment comprising five Zn treatments(0, 7.5, 15, 30, and 45 kg Zn/ha as ZnSO4·7H2O) and wheat cultivar (Zhengmai 9023). The hydroponic experiment used a completely randomized block design with two factors (Zn supplementation to root and foliarspray of Zn). Results showed that in the field experiment, Zn fertilization significantly increased the amount ofsoil diethylene triamine penlaacetic acid-Zn (DTPA-Zn), whereas there was no significant effect on Znconcentration in grain. Furthermore, the utilization rate of Zn fertilizer was only 0.98%, 0.64%, 0.29%, and0.14% with treatments of 7.5, 15, 30, and 45 mg Zn ha-1, respectively. In contrast, the hydroponic experimentshowed that both foliar spray and Zn supplied to roots significantly increased Zn concentration in grain, with thegreatest concentration found in shoots. Results suggested that lower absorption and translocation were theinhibitory factors to increase grain Zn concentration in calcareous soil. Consequently, Zn fertilization topotentially Zn-deficient calcareous soils is not effective method to increase grain Zn concentration.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".