Estimation of Optimum Available Phosphorous Extraction Methods for Reddish Brown Earth Soil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several extraction methods are used to determine plant available Phosphorus (P) that affectfor growth and yield of plants. This study was conducted to evaluate the different available Pextraction methods for reddish brown earth (RBE) soil in dry zone of Sri Lanka. Theexperiment was conducted as a randomised complete block design (RCBD) with fourreplicates at Kahatagasdigiliya in Anuradhapura district during Maha (2013/2014) season.Seven extraction methods, i.e., Olsen‟s, Bray 1, Borax, Mehlich III, Modified Kelowna,ammonium chloride and distilled water were tested. Soil samples were collected at thetasseling stage of maize plants (Zea mays L.) treated with four fertiliser rates: 0 (T1), 20 (T2),30 (T3) and 40 (T4) kg of P ha-1. Soil samples were analysed for pH, available P and total Papart the initial chemical characterisation. The effect of extraction methods for soil availableP and the P recovery, interactions among the P levels with different extraction methods wereevaluated. Available P extraction and P recovery using Modified Kelowna method wassignificantly greater than other methods (p<0.05). Olsen‟s, Bray 1, Borax, Mehlich III,Ammonium Chloride extraction methods were not significantly different (p>0.05) inavailable P determination. The extraction methods and fertiliser levels were significantlydifferent (p<0.05) with soil available P. The P extraction in T4 was comparatively higher thanother methods except distilled water extraction. Modified Kelowna method was mostappropriate in available P extraction under experimental conditions in RBE soil.Keywords: Phosphorus, P extraction methods, P recovery, RBE
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 | 0.000 | 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".