Use of Species-specific Controlled-release Fertilizer Rates to Manage Growth and Quality of Container Nursery Crops
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to determine the optimal controlled-release fertilizer (CRF) application rates or ranges for the production of five 2-gal nursery crops. Plants were evaluated following fertilization with 19N–2.6P–10.8K plus minors, 8–9 month CRF incorporated at 0.15, 0.45, 0.75, 1.05, 1.35, and 1.65 kg·m −3 nitrogen (N). The five crops tested were bigleaf hydrangea ( Hydrangea macrophylla ), ‘Green Velvet’ boxwood ( Buxus × ), ‘Magic Carpet’ spirea ( Spiraea japonica ), ‘Palace Purple’ coral bells ( Heuchera micrantha ), and rose of sharon ( Hibiscus syriacus ). Most plant growth characteristics (i.e., growth index, plant height, leaf area, and shoot dry weight) were greater in high vs. low CRF treatments at the final harvest. Low CRF rates negatively impacted overall appearance and marketability. The species-specific CRF range recommendations were 1.05 to 1.35 kg·m −3 N for rose of sharon, 0.75 to 1.05 kg·m −3 N for ‘Magic Carpet’ spirea, and 0.75 to 1.35 kg·m −3 N for bigleaf hydrangea and ‘Green Velvet’ boxwood, whereas the recommended CRF rate for ‘Palace Purple’ coral bells was 0.75 kg·m −3 N. Overall, species-specific CRF application rates can be used to manage growth and quality of containerized nursery crops during production in a temperate climate.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".