Utilization of Silicon Fertilizer Application on Pepper Seedling Production
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this research was study the rate and application method of calcium silicate (Ca2SiO4) fertilizer appropriated for pepper seedling production. This study was divided into two experiments. Experiment 1, the effect of Ca2SiO4 fertilizer application in pepper seedling by mixed in growing media was arranged in 2x6 factorials in Completely Randomized Design (CRD) with 4 replications. Factor A was seed preparation methods (seed primed with Ca2SiO4 fertilizer at a rate 2 g L-1 and non-seed primed) and factor B was application rates of Ca2SiO4 fertilizer at 0, 30, 60, 120, 240 and 480 kg ha-1. Experiment 2, the effect of Ca2SiO4 fertilizer application in pepper seedling by foliar method was arranged in 2x6 factorials in CRD with 4 replications. Factor A was seed preparation methods and factor B was application rates of Ca2SiO4 fertilizer at 0, 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 g L-1. All experiments data were collected such as plant growth and total silicon content in plant at 28 days after sowing (DAS). From experiment 1, the results showed that seed primed with Ca2SiO4 fertilizer application at a rate 120 kg ha-1 gave the good plant growth and total silicon in plant. Experiment 2, the results showed that seed primed with Ca2SiO4 fertilizer application at a rate 2 g L-1 gave the highest of plant growth and total silicon in plant. To conclude, Ca2SiO4 fertilizer application can be employed for enhancing plant growth of pepper seedling and increasing silicon content in plant.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".