Nutrient Contents in Sugarcane Biomass in the First Regrowth Cycle
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sugarcane extracts and accumulates high amounts of soil nutrients, because it produces large amounts of biomass. Nutrient contents for varieties widely used in the past can be found in the literature, but there is little information on current cultivars. In view of these considerations, the study aimed to determine the nutrient concentration in the shoot biomass of sugarcane varieties in the first regrowth cycle. The study was conducted at a Latossolo Amarelo in Fazenda Jequiá, located in the state of Alagoas, Brazil. The experiment was a randomized block design with five replicates, consisting of four sugarcane varieties: SP813250, RB867515, RB92579 and VAT90212. At maturity of the first regrowth sugarcane, nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), potassium (K), Ca (calcium), Mg (magnesium), S (sulfur), zinc (Zn), iron (Fe), copper (Cu), manganese (Mn) and Boron (B) contents were determined. Varietal differences were found in nutrient contents. However, no variety showed higher concentration for all the elements. The varieties showed the following order of macronutrient concentrations: K > N > Ca > Mg > S > P. The average values were 0.47, 0.08, 0.66, 0.15, 0.13 and 0.11 dag kg-1 of N, P, K, Ca, Mg and S, respectively. Concentrations of 9.9, 98.7, 29.2, 1.9 and 4.4 mg kg-1 of Zn, Fe, Mn, Cu and B were found for the micronutrients, respectively.
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.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it