MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2891006600 · doi:10.5539/jas.v10n10p476

Management of Biostimulant and Silicon in Mineral Nutrition and Quality of Cotton Fiber

2018· article· en· W2891006600 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
William H. Fichhof, Ricardo de Andrade Silva, Luan Santos de Oliveira, Rudieli Machado da Silva

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSilicon Effects in Agriculture
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandomized block designSiliconNutrientCropFiberYield (engineering)AgronomyMathematicsHorticultureMaterials scienceBiologyComposite materialMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Silicon (Si) and biostimulant management have been proposed techniques to reduce the impacts of abiotic stresses and to increase the productivity of several crops, however, there are still few concise results of the management of this crop. The objective of this work was to evaluate the effects of biostimulant and silicon treatments on isolated or mixed applications on mineral nutrition, yield and fiber quality of two cotton varieties. For this, an experiment was carried out in a randomized block design in the municipality of Luís Eduardo Magalhães-BA, in a 4 × 2 factorial arrangement, with four replications, in which four biostimulant treatments (control, without application; Si; biostimulant; and Si + biostimulant) were evaluated in two cotton varieties (FM 954GLT and FM 983GLT). The nutrient content of leaves, relative water content, electrolyte leakage, fiber yield, and quality were evaluated, the data collected were submitted to the F test and means were compared by Tukey at 5% probability. At the end of the experiment, it was verified that the management of Si and biostimulants increase the integrity of the cell wall, the association of Si + biostimulant increases the levels of N, Fe and Si foliar and reduces the levels of B and Mn, and do not influence on yield and fiber quality.

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 score0.918
Threshold uncertainty score0.206

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicSilicon Effects in AgricultureFrench-language works237,207