MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210492616 · doi:10.5539/sar.v11n1p45

Strategies to Reduce Inorganic Fertilizer Inputs in Crop Production through Integrated Crop-livestock Systems

2022· article· en· W4210492616 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Akim Omokanye, Yamily J. Zavala, Dianne Westerlund, Liisa Jeffrey, Buthaina Al‐Maqtari

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainable Agriculture Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPhosphorus and nutrient management
Canadian institutionsNorthwestern PolytechnicAlberta Conservation AssociationUniversity of Alberta
FundersAlberta Wheat CommissionAgriculture Funding ConsortiumAlberta Canola Producers CommissionAlberta Agriculture and Forestry
KeywordsCanolaAgronomyManureCropCrop rotationBeef cattleEnvironmental sciencePastureFertilizerLivestockCrop yieldCover cropManure managementBiologyAnimal science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adequate nutrition is essential for crop growth, production, and profit potential for farmers, but chemical fertilizer costs alone can constitute a greater portion of the total variable costs for wheat and canola. The present study evaluated seven cropping treatments (CT) in a 3-year crop rotation under two different soil types. Five of the CTs consisted of a one-time application (year 1) of beef cattle manure, and growing of cover crop cocktails (CCC) for annual pasture, swath grazing, green manure, and green feed. Canola and wheat were respectively grown in years 2 and 3 of the 3-year crop rotation. In year 2, CTs impacted canola seed yield and seed protein (only at site 2). Wheat had similar protein content in year 3 at both sites. At both sites, the application of beef cattle manure in year 1 seemed to encourage higher plant tissue P at the expense of plant tissue Zn. Overall, beef cattle manure and CCCs based CTs improved soil N, P, and K, but beef cattle manure application consistently improved crop yield and significantly reduced the need for additional in-organic fertilizer application to canola and wheat in subsequent years.

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)0.002
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.167
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSustainable Agriculture ResearchSame topicPhosphorus and nutrient managementFrench-language works237,207