MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2941910141 · doi:10.33354/smst.75310

Phosphorus fertilization and herbage production in Finland

2014· article· en· W2941910141 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Elena Valkama, Perttu Virkajärvi, Risto Uusitalo, Kari Ylivainio, Eila Turtola

Bibliographic record

VenueSuomen Maataloustieteellisen Seuran Tiedote · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil and Water Nutrient Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoil waterHuman fertilizationPhosphorusAgronomyOrganic matterSoil textureEnvironmental scienceSoil organic matterSoil pHSoil scienceChemistryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The herbage yield responses to phosphorus (P) fertilization show large variation and, unlike to cereals, initial soil test P (STP) does not always predict such variation. By using meta-analysis, we reviewed quantitatively 38 Finnish field experiments related to the effects of P fertilization on herbage dry matter (DM) yields in the 1960s – 2000s. The current meta-analysis has several advantages over other type of research aiming to summarize the effect of P fertilization on herbage production. It involves large number of studies, diversity of soils and cultivation zones, and it enables to highlight the sources of variation in responses across the studies. Along with clay and coarse-textured mineral soils, we observed 20 studies on organic soils, whereas previous European and Canadian studies on the same topic involved mostly mineral soils. Moreover, we developed yield response models for different soil textures and initial STP levels. The summarized effect of P fertilization (mean 50 kg P ha-1) on DM yields was 13% over the control (N and K fertilization) with large variation across the studies from –10% to 70%. The major sources of variation were soil texture, soil acidity (for organic soils), initial STP and the yield level in control. For example, the yield response was three times larger on organic soils than on clay or coarse-textured mineral soils. Moreover, the yield response was double on slightly acidic organic soils (29%, n = 8) compared to that on moderately acidic ones (15%, n = 11). Thus, for acidic organic soils, even with low STP, P fertilization may be practically useless until the soils are first limed. Meta-regression proved that generally the responses reduced with increasing initial STP across the studies and reached zero at high STP (PAc, 21 mg l-1). However, in some studies with high control yields, no responses were observed even at low STP, since the responses decreased linearly with increasing control yields. Finally, the responses did not statistically differ between the cultivation zones, cut frequency, decades, or between the studies having different duration of experiments. Variation in herbage yields that is often observed in P fertilizer experiments is only partly related to increasing P rates, but also other factors should be taken into account. Further studies should address to the role of, e.g., soil structure in yield development, as it is evident that additional relevant explanatory variables would be needed to adequately explain the variation in herbage yields.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.008
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.184
Teacher spread0.179 · 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

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSuomen Maataloustieteellisen Seuran TiedoteSame topicSoil and Water Nutrient DynamicsFrench-language works237,207