MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2250344113 · doi:10.5539/sar.v5n1p78

Nutrient Dynamics in Wetland Organic Vegetable Production Systems in Eastern Zambia

2016· article· en· W2250344113 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Paramu Mafongoya, Obert Jiri

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainable Agriculture Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Conservation and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFertilizerChemistryGliricidia sepiumAnimal scienceDry matterCropAgronomyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>The aim of this study was to determine effects of organic inputs on vegetable crops and on a subsequent maize crop grown in wetlands. The following treatments were applied to cabbage (<em>Brassica oleracea</em>) and onion (<em>Allium cepa</em>) crops: <em>Gliricidia</em> <em>sepium </em>(Gliricidia) biomass (8 t ha<sup>-1</sup>), Gliricidia<em> </em>biomass (12 t ha<sup>-1</sup>), cattle manure (10 t ha<sup>-1</sup>) with half recommended fertilizer rate, and recommended fertilizer rate (800 kg ha<sup>-1</sup> basal dressing and 250 kg ha<sup>-1</sup> top dressing fertilizer). The residual effect of the treatments was tested on a subsequent maize crop. The soil at the sites had low organic matter content (average 2%) and it was acidic (average pH 4.4). Soil inorganic N increased significantly from 11 mg kg<sup>-1</sup> in the unfertilized crop to 22 mg kg<sup>-1</sup> in the Gliricidia treatments after cabbage, and from 10.3 mg kg<sup>-1</sup> to 37.2 mg kg<sup>-1</sup> after the onion crop. There were significant differences (P<0.05) in onion and cabbage yields and in subsequent maize yield in both cabbage and onion plots. This study concluded that the application of high quality Gliricidia prunings lead to rapid release of N and higher vegetable yields. However, there is a high amount of residual N that can be leached.</p>

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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.334
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations6
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSustainable Agriculture ResearchSame topicEnvironmental Conservation and ManagementFrench-language works237,207