Yield of Pennisetum glaucum L. Under Phosphate Source Doses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Phosphorus deficiency has been a limiting factor in crop yields due to the low availability of this nutrient in the soil. Thus, the objective of this work was to evaluate the growth and P concentrations in plant tissue of two cultivars of forage millet grown submitted at doses of phosphorus (P). The experiment was set in greenhouse conditions in a Hapludox. The experiment was carried out in a completely randomized design in a 4 × 2 factorial scheme, with four replications, where the factors were the control treatment (without fertilization with P) and three levels of P (50, 100 and 200 kg ha-1) as simple superphosphate and two cultivars of pearl millet (BN2 and ADR500). The following were evaluated: plant height, stem diameter, dry matter of the aerial part (DMAP) and roots (DRM), phosphorus content in the leaf, in the stem and in the roots. The interaction between doses of P with the cultivars did not significantly affect the studied variables. Cultivar ADR500 provided greater height, stem diameter and dry matter of the aerial part. The best doses were 166 kg ha-1, 173 kg-1, 203 kg ha-1 and 165 kg of phosphorus ha-1 to height, stem diameter, DMAP, DMR and phosphorus content in the leaf, respectively. The increase of phosphorus rate increased content of P in the dry matter of the stem and roots on evaluated cultivars.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".