MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2618988194 · doi:10.1139/cjps-2016-0342

Yield and uptake of nitrogen and phosphorus in soybean, pea, and lentil, and effects on soil nutrient supply and crop yield in the succeeding year in Saskatchewan, Canada

2017· article· en· W2618988194 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Jing Xie, J.J. Schoenau

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLegume Nitrogen Fixing Symbiosis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersUniversity of California, San Diego
KeywordsAgronomyYield (engineering)PhosphorusNutrientCropNitrogenCrop yieldEnvironmental scienceBiologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is little information on soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] grown in western Canada despite its expanding acreage in this region. This study quantified the yield and uptake of nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) in three short-season soybean varieties (in 2014) and their impact on following wheat and canola crops, as well as soil nutrient supplies in 2015 in comparison to three pea and three lentil varieties at four sites in Saskatchewan. In 2014, soybean had comparable grain yield (929–3534 kg ha−1) and higher grain N (39–48 g kg−1) and P (5.1–6.8 g kg−1) concentrations compared with pea and lentil. In 2015, although soil N and P supplies showed some responses to different stubbles during the growing season, cumulative soil nutrient supplies were similar in soybean, pea, and lentil stubbles at the end of the season. Overall, soybean, pea, and lentil stubbles had similar impact on the yield and uptake of N and P in the wheat or canola crop grown in the subsequent year. The findings suggest promising potential for soybean production to achieve rotational benefits similar to other grain legumes grown under western Canadian soil–climatic conditions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.142

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.178 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations15
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicLegume Nitrogen Fixing SymbiosisFrench-language works237,207