Relative effectiveness of various sources, methods, times and rates of copper fertilizers in improving grain yield of wheat on a Cu-deficient soil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A field experiment was conducted to determine the relative effectiveness of various sources, methods, times and rates of Cu fertilizers on grain yield, protein concentration in grain, concentration of Cu in grain and uptake of Cu in grain of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), and residual concentration of DTPA-extractable Cu in soil on a Cu-deficient soil near Porcupine Plain in northeastern Saskatchewan. The experiment was conducted from 1999 to 2002 on the same site, but the results for 2002 were not presented because of very low grain yield due to drought in the growing season. The 25 treatments included soil application of four granular Cu fertilizers (Cu lignosulphonate, Cu sulphate, Cu oxysulphate I and Cu oxysulphate II) as soil-incorporated (at 0.5 and 2.0 kg Cu ha -1 ), seedrow-placed (at 0.25 and 1.0 kg Cu ha -1 ) and foliar application of four solution Cu fertilizers (Cu chelate-EDTA, Cu sequestered I, Cu sulphate/chelate and Cu sequestered II at 0.25 kg Cu ha -1 ) at the four-leaf and flag-leaf growth stages, plus a zero-Cu check. Soil was tilled only once to incorporate all designated Cu and blanket fertilizers into the soil a few days prior to seeding. Wheat plants in the zero-Cu treatment exhibited Cu deficiency in all years. For foliar application at the flag-leaf stage, grain yield increased with all four of the Cu fertilizers in 2000 and 2001, and in all but Cu sequestered II in 1999. Foliar application at the four-leaf growth stage of three Cu fertilizers (Cu chelate-EDTA, Cu sequestered I and Cu sulphate/chelate), soil incorporation of all Cu fertilizers at 2 kg Cu ha -1 and two Cu fertilizers (Cu lignosulphonate and Cu sulphate) at 0.5 kg Cu ha -1 rate, and seedrow placement of two Cu fertilizers (Cu lignosulphonate and Cu sulphate) at 1 kg Cu ha -1 increased grain yield of wheat only in 2001. There was no effect of Cu fertilization on protein concentration in grain. The increase in concentration and uptake of Cu in grain from Cu fertilization usually showed a trend similar to grain yield. There was some increase in residual DTPA-extractable Cu in the 0–60 cm soil in Cu lignosulphonate, Cu sulphate and Cu oxysulphate II soil incorporation treatments, particularly at the 2 kg Cu ha -1 rate. In summary, the results indicate that foliar application of Cu fertilizers at the flag-leaf growth stage can be used for immediate correction of Cu deficiency in wheat. Because Cu deficiency in crops often occurs in irregular patches within fields, foliar application may be the most practical and economical way to correct Cu deficiency during the growing season, as lower Cu rates can correct Cu deficiency. Key words: Application time, Cu source, foliar application, granular Cu, growth stage, placement method, rate of Cu, seedrow-placed Cu, soil incorporation
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".