Row and Forage Crop Rotation Effects on Maize Mineral Nutrition and Yield
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Diverse crop rotations are an integral component of sustainable agriculture. The objectives were to investigate row and forage crop rotation effects on stover biomass, grain yield, and mineral nutrient concentrations of maize (Zea mays L.) grown under a maize–soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] 2-yr rotation (C–S); maize–soybean–spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) 3-yr rotation (C–S–W); maize–soybean–oat/pea (Avena sativa L./Pisum sativum L.) hay 3-yr rotation (C–S–H); and maize–soybean–oat/pea hay underseeded with alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) – alfalfa – alfalfa 5-yr rotation (C–S–H/A–A–A). Rotations were established in 1997 and maize plots were sampled in 2008–2011. Across the 4 yr of the study, grain yield was 10% greater (1.0 Mg ha−1) in C–S–H/A–A–A and C–S–W rotations compared with C–S with C–S–H intermediate. Under C–S–H/A–A–A, kernel N concentration was 7% greater, kernel P was 17% less, and kernel K was 7% less compared with C–S–W. Kernel Zn concentration was 16% lower in C–S–H than in C–S and C–S–H/A–A–A. Thus, diversification of the C–S rotation with wheat (C–S–W) increased yield while conserving kernel P and K concentration, whereas diversification with oat/pea hay + alfalfa (C–S–H/A–A–A) increased grain yield and kernel N concentration but decreased both kernel P and kernel K concentration.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".