Organic and Mineral Fertilizer on the Initial Development and Nutrition of Jatropha
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Jatropha (Jatropha curcas L.) is an herbaceous plant, perennial, belonging to the family of Euphorbiaceaes. Jatropha’s extract is used for the harvest of fruits, high amount of nutrients and, if not properly fertilized, can lead to the impoverishment of the soil over the years of cultivation. Thus, in this present work, we have a concern with the importance of fertilization. The experiment was conducted under field conditions in the 2014/2015 agricultural year, in São Jorge do Patrocínio, State of Parana, Brazil. The experiment was conducted in a randomized block design with five replications and five treatments, totaling 25 installments. The treatments were as follows: organic fertilization (total rate: 2,800 g plant-1), mineral fertilizers with nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium (total rate: 174.4 g plant-1, and 13.2 g plant-1 of urea, 141.2 g plant-1 of superphosphate and 20 g plant-1 of potassium chloride), 75% organic fertilizer + 25% mineral, 50% organic fertilizer + 50% mineral, 25% organic + 75% mineral, applied at planting. Poultry litter was used as the organic fertilizer source, the nitrogen source was urea, the phosphorus source was superphosphate and, the potassium source was potassium chloride. Spacing of 2 × 2 m between plants and the pits with 30 × 30 × 30 cm. The evaluated variables were: plant height, stem diameter, contents macro and micronutrients in leaves. It can be concluded that there was no influence of mineral and organic fertilization on the initial growth of jatropha. As for the macronutrient levels, there were no significant differences for P and K. However, regarding the mineral fertilizer and the micronutrient content, there was a significant difference in Mn, in the treatment with total rate of mineral fertilizer and in the treatment with 25% organic fertilizer and 75% mineral fertilizer.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".