MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2330072274 · doi:10.2134/agronj2011.0414

The Effects of Chloride and Potassium Nutrition on Seed Yield of Annual Canarygrass

2012· article· en· W2330072274 on OpenAlexaffabout
William E. May, S. S. Malhi, Christopher B. Holzapfel, B. Nybo, J.J. Schoenau, G. P. Lafond

Bibliographic record

VenueAgronomy Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSeedling growth and survival studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgronomyYield (engineering)PanicleFertilizerPotassiumField experimentPotashMathematicsAnimal scienceBiologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The year‐to‐year variability of seed yield in annual canarygrass ( Phalaris canariensis L.) is a major concern among growers. A field experiment was conducted at 13 site‐years across Saskatchewan to determine the response of annual canarygrass seed yield to K and Cl, and to provide better recommendations to producers on the use of KCl fertilizer in annual canarygrass based on soil test results. Potassium did not affect the yield or development of annual canarygrass over a range of 155 to 717 kg K ha −1 in the top 15 cm of soil. Chloride had a large impact on annual canarygrass seed yield; seed yield increased by approximately 24% when Cl was added in the form of KCl or CaCl 2 when averaged across all sites. The seed yield increased because the application of Cl increased panicle size (seeds panicle −1 ). The magnitude of the response tended to increase as level of Cl in the soil decreased. Annual canarygrass growers need to measure Cl when using soil tests to determine fertilizer requirements. It is recommended that 9.1 kg Cl ha −1 in the form of 20 kg ha −1 of KCl be applied when the Cl level in the surface soil (0–15 cm) is below 70 kg Cl ha −1 . The findings encourage growers to conduct individual field test strips to determine the strength of the Cl response.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.168

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.190 · 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
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAgronomy JournalSame topicSeedling growth and survival studiesFrench-language works237,207