MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Foliar Application of Boron Improves the Growth and Yield in Barley (Hordeum Vulgare L.)

2021· article· en· W4200410963 on OpenAlexaff
Admin PRINCIPAL, Shafīq Aḥmad, Taqi Raza, Shakeel Imran, Neal S. Eash, Nawab Khan, Waqar Ashiq, Trevan Flynn

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine Cluj-Napoca Food Science and Technology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Micronutrient Interactions and Effects
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHordeum vulgareAgronomyBoronMicronutrientNutrientYield (engineering)BiologyCropCrop yieldGrain yieldPoaceaeChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Crop productivity is limited by several environmental constraints. Among these, micronutrients availability to plants plays a key role in agricultural crops production. Boron is an important micronutrient for crops and it significantly aids in a grain setting. Soil applied boron become unavailable to plant due to fixation in soil sites and cause nutrients deficiency in plants, immature grain settings, and yield reduction. Thus, the aim of this work was to quantify the impact of the foliar application of boron gradients on the yield and growth of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.). Five treatments were studied, which included; T1= Control (0% B), T2 = 0.5% B, T3 = 1% B, T4 =1.5% B, and T5 =2% B. The results indicated that foliar application of B significantly increased the yield and growth traits in barley. However, 2% foliar application of B showed the highest value for all studied traits including; plant height (5.6%), number of tillers per plant (2.4%), spike length (32%), weight gain per spike (6.2%), seed index (6%), grain yield (10%), and biological yield (4%). Based on these findings, it can be concluded that the foliar application of B at 2% can be used to improve the growth and yield in barley.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.933
Threshold uncertainty score0.816

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.187 · 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 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

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBulletin of University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine Cluj-Napoca Food Science and TechnologySame topicPlant Micronutrient Interactions and EffectsFrench-language works237,207