MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3128206133 · doi:10.1139/cjps-2019-0326

Exogenous nitrogen uptake and allocation in chestnut

2020· article· en· W3128206133 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Xu Cheng, Sujuan Guo, Jing Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant nutrient uptake and metabolism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShootFertilizerSeedlingNitrogenAmmoniumHuman fertilizationAgronomyNitrateAmmonium nitrateChemistryNutrientHorticultureBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Yield and quality of chestnut (Castanea mollissima Blume) are affected by nitrogen (N) availability; however, there are few reports on foliar and root absorption of different chemical forms of N in chestnut. To analyze the absorption characteristics of exogenous N fertilizer labeled by 15N in chestnut, nitrate and ammonium nitrogen uptake and allocation were determined in 1-yr-old seedlings that received soil and foliar 15NH4NO3 and NH415NO3. We found that 29% of the nitrate and 25% of the ammonium absorbed by the leaves were translocated to the roots, while 62.01% of the nitrate and 63.27% of the ammonium absorbed by the roots were translocated to the shoots. The seedlings absorbed more nitrate nitrogen than ammonium nitrogen, and their foliar N uptake was faster than their root uptake. Most of the N absorbed by the seedlings was fixed in the shoots in both foliar and soil uptake. The proportion of N fixed was greater in seedlings subjected to foliar fertilization than in those treated with soil fertilizer. Foliar fertilizer application can meet the N nutritional needs of fast-growing shoots more effectively than soil fertilizer application; however, soil fertilization was a better long-term N source than foliar fertilization. Thus, ensuring an adequate supply of nitrate N fertilizer in the soil accompanied by a commensurate increase in foliar fertilizer application can effectively meet the nutrient requirements associated with the rapid growth of chestnut seedling shoots.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.161 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicPlant nutrient uptake and metabolismFrench-language works237,207