MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2504273407 · doi:10.5539/jsd.v9n4p61

Direct and Residual Effects of Different Poultry Compost and NPK Fertilizer Applications on Drought-Tolerant Maize Production

2016· article· en· W2504273407 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
O. Otitoju, M. B. Adewole, A. A. Olowoake, Adetokunbo Oluwole Ilesanmi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sustainable Development · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicCrop Yield and Soil Fertility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBroilerRandomized block designCompostFertilizerManureSowingAnimal scienceAgronomyGrain yieldZea maysMathematicsChemistryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>This study investigated the direct and residual effects of different poultry compost and NPK fertilizer applications on the growth components of drought-tolerant maize (<em>Zea mays</em> L.) in a derived savanna agroecology of southwestern Nigeria. The experiment was laid out in a Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) with six treatments, each replicated thrice. The treatments which were applied at planting, consisted of 100% cockerel manure (CM), 100% broiler manure (BM), 100% layers manure (LM), 33.3% cockerel manure + 33.3% Broiler manure + 33.3% Layers manure (CBLM) at 4.50 kg plot<sup>-1</sup><sub>,</sub>inorganic NPK 20-20-10 fertilizer at 0.30 kg plot<sup>-1</sup> and zero manure application as control (CT). The apparent efficiency of N recovery (AENR), N and P ear-leaf (NPEL) contents of maize with poultry manures were higher when compared to inorganic NPK fertilizer applications. The highest mean grain yield 1.30 t ha<sup>-1</sup> of maize was obtained with BM treatment that had the highest AENR and NPEL values. This however, was not significantly (p > 0.05) different from the mean grain yield obtained with other treatments during the dry season. Comparable but higher mean grain yield, but also not significantly (p > 0.05) different were obtained during the wet season in all the treatments.</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)0.000
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 score0.803
Threshold uncertainty score0.137

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.192 · 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sustainable DevelopmentSame topicCrop Yield and Soil FertilityFrench-language works237,207