MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2806994388 · doi:10.1139/cjps-2017-0160

Nitrogen and phosphorus uptake from solid and liquid pig manure in perennial and annual cropping systems

2017· article· en· W2806994388 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Rezvan Karimi, Wole Akinremi, Don Flaten

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil and Water Nutrient Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsManurePerennial plantAgronomyCropping systemLiquid manureManure managementMineralization (soil science)NitrogenNutrientPhosphorusAnimal scienceEnvironmental scienceChemistryCropBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Applying pig manure in excess of crop demand can result in nutrient loss to water bodies. We studied the effect of liquid and solid pig manures and their N- and P-based application rates on yield and nutrient uptake in annual and perennial cropping systems for 3 yr. The experiment had a split-plot design with five nutrient management treatments including liquid-N (annual N-based liquid pig manure), liquid-P (P-based liquid pig manure once every 5 yr), solid-N (annual N-based solid pig manure), solid-P (P-based solid pig manure once every 5 yr), and control (no manure). The liquid-P treatment showed high apparent nitrogen and phosphorus recovery (ANR and APR, respectively) in each cropping system and yields similar to that of the liquid-N treatment. The solid-N treatment had the smallest ANR in the perennial cropping system (9%–27%) and also the smallest APR in both cropping systems (typically <4%) possibly due to N deficiency and high P application rate. The current formula for estimating organic N mineralization overestimated the available N, particularly for solid pig manure, reducing crop yield. Based on the ANR obtained in this study, a more appropriate coefficient is 10%–15% of the organic N from solid pig manure for no-till perennial cropping systems.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations6
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant Science→Same topicSoil and Water Nutrient Dynamics→French-language works237,207→