MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2800851449 · doi:10.5539/jas.v10n6p372

Phosphorus and Boron Application on Growth, Yield, and Quality of Soybean Seeds (Glycine max [L.] Merril)

2018· article· en· W2800851449 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Paul Benyamin Timotiwu, Agustiansyah Agustiansyah, Eko Pramono, Steffy Agustin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Growth and Agriculture Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandomized block designGerminationBoronDry weightPhosphorusSeedlingYield (engineering)AgronomyFactorial experimentMathematicsHorticultureChemistryAnimal scienceBiologyMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The increased of growth, yield and quality of soybean seeds are expected to occur by applyingP (phosphorus) and B (boron). This research was to investigate the effect of P and application of B their response on growth, yield and quality of soybean seeds. This research was conducted at fieldland and the Laboratory of Seeds and Plant Breeding, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Lampung from November 2016 to April 2017. This treatment was arranged in a 6 × 2 factorial consisting of six doses of P2O5 (0; 50; 100; 150; 200; 250 kg/ha) and two concentration of B (0 and 5 ppm). This study was designed in Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) with three blocks. Homogeneity of variance was tested by Barlett’s test and non-aditivity model using Tukey’s test and continued by orthogonal polynomials at α 0.05. The results showed that applying P to dose 250 kg/ha increase the growth, yield and quality of soybean seeds in all variables. Whereas the applications 5 ppm of Boron increased growth, yield and quality of soybean plant seeds higher than without Boron on avariable number of unfallleaf, dry weight of plant, 100 grain weight, germination, dry weight of normal seedling, and vigor index. Response of growth, yield and quality of soybean seeds to increased doses of P did not depend on the granting of B.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.748
Threshold uncertainty score0.211

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicPlant Growth and Agriculture TechniquesFrench-language works237,207