MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2339481647 · doi:10.1139/cjps-2015-0374

Relationship between plant nitrogen and phosphorus accumulations in a canola crop as affected by nitrogen management under ample phosphorus supply conditions

2016· article· en· W2339481647 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Bin Ma, Z. M. Zheng

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicNitrogen and Sulfur Effects on Brassica
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaCanola Council of Canada
KeywordsCanolaPhosphorusNitrogenBrassicaAgronomyNutrientDry matterCropNutrient managementChemistryAnimal scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The understanding of plant nutrient uptake and dynamics is a necessary step to develop site-specific, economically viable, and environmentally responsible management practices. A field study on canola (Brassica napus L.), treated with preplant and sidedress nitrogen (N) applications under ample phosphorus (P) supply conditions, was conducted to determine seasonal plant dry matter (DM) and N and P uptake patterns. We found that periodic DM measured at 20% flowering (FL), from FL to 50% pods reaching maximum size (FL-RI), and from RI to physiological maturity (RI-PM) contributed to 30%, 57%, and 14% of total DM, respectively. Yields ranged from 111 to 447 g m −2 with a sharp decline in 2012 induced by heat and drought. The crop took up about 58%–71% of total plant N by FL, whereas up to 42% of total plant P was assembled during the RI-PM. Canola seed accounted for 60%–66% of total plant N and 59%–63% of total plant P. Accumulation of DM and N post-FL, and of P during RI-PM could explain 69%, 43%, and 55%, respectively, variations in yield, seed N, and seed P. Our data indicated that plant P uptake under adequate P supply conditions in canola was largely enhanced by N application.

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 score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.508

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations32
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicNitrogen and Sulfur Effects on BrassicaFrench-language works237,207