Nitrogen and Potassium Fertilizers Increase Cherry Tomato Height and Yield
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Less or no fertilizer use compromises growth and yield of cherry tomato (Solanum lycopersicum var. Cerasiforme) in Uganda. A study was conducted to determine the effect of nitrogen (N) and potassium (K) fertilizer rates on cherry tomato growth and yield. The experiment was conducted in a field during 2016B and 2017A seasons at Namulonge. The treatments included; (100, 60, 100) and (200, 60, 200) kg ha-1 of N, P, K and the control with no fertilizer application, these were laid out in a split plot design with three replications. Results revealed that tomato plants significantly (P < 0.05) responded to nitrogen and potassium fertilizer application by increasing their height and yield. The highest tomato height and yield were obtained from plots applied with 100, 60, 100 kg ha-1 of N, P and K. This rate was considered as the optimal application rate because plants applied with fertilizer above this rate were observed to have low height and yield. On the other hand, plants applied with nitrogen and potassium fertilizers below 100, 60, 100 kg ha-1, flowered and matured earlier than those in the control plots. The study showed that N and K fertilizer influenced plant height, flowering, maturity period and yield of cherry tomato. Based on these findings, use of 100, 60, 100 kg ha-1 of N, P and K is recommended for improving cherry tomato production in central Uganda, where the study was conducted, and any fertilizer rate above 100, 60, 100 kg ha-1 in the same area may be un-economical to use in cherry tomato growing.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".