Growth and Productivity of Sugarcane Cultivated in Soils Submitted to Chiseling in the Planting Row and in Total Area
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Soil tillage carried out in total area in sugarcane field reform causes changes in soil structure, affecting root system development due to the use of agricultural machinery from planting to harvesting. Thus, we assessed the growth and stalk productivity of sugarcane cultivated in an Oxisol and Ultisol submitted to chiseling in the planting row and in total area. The experiment was conducted in two agricultural areas in a large paired-plot design. Treatments consisted of two areas submitted to chiseling in the planting row (CPR) and chiseling in total area (CTA) in an Oxisol and Ultisol. The variables number of tillers, number of green and dead leaves per plant, leaf area, leaf area index, plant height, and total dry matter were measured during six assessments over the crop cycle sugarcane planting with the variety CTC 14 in the Oxisol and with the variety CTC 4 in the Ultisol. In addition, stalk productivity was assessed after harvesting. The assessments were performed at 1071, 1705, 2388, 3600, 4593, and 5764 accumulated degree-days (ADD) in the Oxisol and at 821, 1519, 2294, 3570, 4562, and 5754 ADD in the Ultisol. Soil tillage with CPR can be replaced by CTA since growth and stalk productivity of sugarcane were similar regardless of the location of the chiseling operation.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".