MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2320624365 · doi:10.2134/agronj2015.0510

Nitrogen Management Effects on Spring Wheat Yield and Protein Concentration Vary with Seeding Date and Slope Position

2016· article· en· W2320624365 on OpenAlexaffabout
Cynthia A. Grant, Alan P. Moulin, Nicolas Tremblay

Bibliographic record

VenueAgronomy Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
Canadian institutionsCégep Saint-Jean-sur-RichelieuBrandon University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUreaFertilizerSeedingYield (engineering)AgronomyGrain yieldNitrogenChemistryAnimal scienceBiologyMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Efficient N fertilizer can improve economic returns and reduce environmental risk. This study evaluated effects of fertilizer rate, source, timing and placement combinations on spring wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.) yield and protein concentration under varying environmental conditions created by differing slope position and seeding dates. Grain yield and protein responses to N management were evaluated for 3 yr at two locations near Brandon, MB, Canada. Grain yield was generally higher by up to 0.9 t ha −1 and protein lower by up to 20 g kg −1 on lower vs. upper slope positions. Grain yield was higher by up to 0.7 t ha −1 and protein concentration lower by 20 g kg −1 with early vs. late seeding. While grain yield and protein both usually increased with N application, by up to 25 and 20%, differences among fertilizer treatments were infrequent. In 2 site‐years, grain yield was lower with fall‐ than spring‐banded urea and the use of fall‐banded controlled release urea (CRU) reduced N losses and led to yields intermediate between fall‐ and spring‐banded urea. Where differences occurred among fertilizer treatments, yield was generally highest with spring side‐banded urea. However, protein occasionally increased with use of CRU vs. urea fertilizer. Spring side‐banded urea, although less costly than enhanced efficiency fertilizers or split N applications, produces both yield and protein concentrations as high or higher than a range of enhanced efficiency fertilizer products or split applications of N, and is a good N management option under environmental conditions in southwestern Manitoba. Core Ideas Benefits of controlled release fertilizers are low where N losses are low In‐soil banding of N is an effective management practice Use of urease inhibitors may not overcome loss of efficiency for surface application as compared to in‐soil banding Spring in‐soil bands are as or more effective than split applications of N in increasing spring wheat yield under common prairie conditions When banded in the fall, controlled release urea can be more effective than uncoated urea where environmental conditions promote N losses

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 score0.713
Threshold uncertainty score0.132

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.178
Teacher spread0.171 · 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

Citations20
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAgronomy JournalSame topicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsFrench-language works237,207