Effect of ammonium/nitrate ratio on growth and development of avocado plants under hydroponic conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An experiment was carried out to study the effects of the proportion of ammonium (NH4+) and nitrate (NO3−) in the nutrient solution on avocado plants in a hydroponic system. Five treatments were applied, consisting of the following proportions of ammonium to nitrate ions in the solution: T0 = 0:4, T1 = 1:3, T2 = 2:2, T3 = 3:1 and T4 = 4:0 at a constant nitrogen concentration of 4 mM. After 4 months, the plants were harvested and fresh and dry matter accumulation, leaf area, and leaf nitrogen and carbon content were measured. An architectural description of the shoot (length, number of nodes and branching) was made. Dry matter of shoots and leaves all decreased with increasing NH4+ concentrations. In contrast, water content in aerial organs increased with NH4+ concentration. Nitrogen and carbon content and the relationship between dry matter production and leaf nitrogen were not significantly affected by the treatments. The architectural analysis showed that the shoots developed over time in one or two distinct growth units. While nitrogen form affected both growth units, the second one was more severely affected, showing decreased length, number of nodes, and branching when NH4+ concentration increased. Key words: Avocado, nitrogen, nitrate, ammonium, development
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".