MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2920960128 · doi:10.5539/jas.v11n4p13

Pronitridine and Nitrapyrin With Anhydrous Ammonia for Corn

2019· article· en· W2920960128 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Gurbir Singh, Kelly A. Nelson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicCrop Yield and Soil Fertility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnhydrousNitrificationChemistryAmmoniaLeaching (pedology)NitrogenAgronomyAnimal scienceGrain yieldSoil waterEnvironmental scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nitrogen (N) losses due to leaching, denitrification and/or ammonia volatilization are of utmost concerns since they reduce farm profitability and adversely affect environmental quality. To combat these N losses, a new nitrification inhibitor (NI), pronitridine, can be used to slow down the nitrification process. A two-year (2014, 2015) field experiment was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of pronitridine at different rates (9.4, 18.7, and 28.1 L ha-1) with anhydrous ammonia (AA) at 112 kg N ha-1 when applied in the fall or pre-plant on claypan soils in northeast Missouri. Using pronitridine at 9.4 L ha-1 with AA in the fall during a low yielding year (2015) increased corn grain yield 7% compared to AA + nitrapyrin (2.3 L ha-1). Agronomic efficiency and yields were greatest with pronitridine at 9.4 L ha-1 than AA + nitrapyrin. Grain N removal was highest for AA + pronitridine at 18.7 L ha-1 compared to AA + nitrapyrin. Pre-plant application of AA + pronitridine at 9.4 L ha-1 increased grain starch content compared to AA without NI, but it was not significantly different from AA + nitrapyrin. Results indicated that pronitridine was effective in increasing yields when applied in the fall and was similar to other NI’s when applied pre-plant in the spring.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.910
Threshold uncertainty score0.151

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 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

Citations9
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicCrop Yield and Soil FertilityFrench-language works237,207