MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2168583266 · doi:10.2135/cropsci2006.01-0023

Fertilization and Mowing Effects on Unimproved Mixed‐Species Hayfields in Quebec, Canada

2006· article· en· W2168583266 on OpenAlexaffabout
Nikita S. Eriksen‐Hamel, Joann K. Whalen

Bibliographic record

VenueCrop Science · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNutrientAgronomyDry matterLeaching (pedology)FertilizerBiologyHuman fertilizationManureOrganic matterAnimal scienceSoil waterEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this experiment was to evaluate the response of two unimproved mixed‐species hayfields in Quebec, Canada, to management regimes of high fertilization and intensive mowing. Dry matter and nutrient yields, tissue nutrient concentrations, and soil nutrient pools were determined in Bromus – Poa and Pleum – Lolium hayfields fertilized with inorganic fertilizer, liquid dairy manure, or no fertilizer and mown at different intensities (every 2 wk or unmown, during a 12‐wk period). Dry matter and nutrient yields, and tissue nutrient concentrations were similar in plots receiving inorganic and dairy manure fertilizers, but the dry matter yield was 0.6 to 2.8 Mg ha −1 higher in fertilized plots than the unfertilized control. Repeated mowing reduced dry matter yield by 1.5 to 2.7 Mg ha −1 , however, tissue nutrient concentration and nutrient yield were greater in mown than unmown plots. The apparent N recovery in a mown, fertilized Pleum – Lolium hayfield was greater than 100%, as the nutrient yields (143 kg N ha −1 ) were greater than the N fertilizer input of 75 kg N ha −1 Soil NO 3 − and microbial biomass N concentration were significantly ( P < 0.05, Tukey test) lower in fertilized plots that were mown every 2 wk than unmown during the study period. Frequent mowing may be a management option that can reduce soil residual N and thus limit NO 3 − leaching from mixed‐species hayfields.

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 score0.804
Threshold uncertainty score0.205

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.181
Teacher spread0.174 · 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

Citations4
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCrop ScienceSame topicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsFrench-language works237,207