MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4224239108 · doi:10.1139/cjps-2021-0254

Soybean is relatively nonresponsive to K fertilizer rate or placement in Manitoba soils

2022· article· en· W4224239108 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Megan A. Bourns, Don Flaten

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGrowth and nutrition in plants
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersWestern Grains Research Foundation
KeywordsHuman fertilizationFertilizerAgronomyYield (engineering)Soil waterPotassiumCropAmmoniumCrop yieldSoil fertilityChemistryBiologyEcologyMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There has been little comprehensive potassium (K) fertility research for soybeans in Manitoba despite recent, rapid, expansion of soybean production in the province. Our main objective was to assess the efficacy of K fertilizer rate and placement combinations to increase K uptake and seed yield of soybeans grown on low K soils. Even though the seven sites had low concentrations of ammonium acetate-extractable soil test K (STK), midseason tissue K concentration increases with K fertilization, and, at several sites, visual deficiency symptoms in or near control plots, soybean seed yield did not respond to K fertilization, regardless of K fertilizer placement and rate. In a complementary field trial, barley, a crop known historically to respond well to K fertilization in Manitoba, had substantial (>20%) increases in yield with K fertilization where soybean did not respond. Ammonium acetate STK and the current 100 mg kg−1 threshold for recommending K fertilization for soybean and barley predicted barley yield response to K fertilization in our study, but did not predict soybean yield response.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.333
Threshold uncertainty score0.669

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicGrowth and nutrition in plantsFrench-language works237,207