Carbon Dioxide Emission, Soil Properties, Intercropping of Cucumber-Tomato and Carrot-Cabbage Crops Performance Affected by Application of Biochar, Urea, and Rock Phosphate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Application of biochar soil amendment is a good practice to store carbon dioxide (CO2) in the soil to mitigate climate change, rock phosphate and urea fertilizer increase soil fertility to enhance food security. This greenhouse experiment aimed to evaluate the effect of biochar, rock phosphate, and urea on cucumber-tomato intercrop and evaluate the carbon dioxide (CO2) emission in the soil grown with cabbage-carrot intercrop. The first experiment was carried out using varying levels of rock phosphate (25, 50 kg ha-1), biochar (25, 50, 100 kg ha-1) and urea (30, 60 kg ha-1) and control with no fertilizer application. The treatment combinations were replicated three times resulting in twenty-one experimental pots. The second experiment involved the application of biochar at different levels of application (25, 50, 100 kg ha-1) and control with no fertilizer application, all the pots across the experiment received an equal application of urea at a rate of 30 kg ha-1 and rock phosphate at a rate of 25 kg ha-1 replicated three times resulting in 12 experimental pots for cabbage-carrot intercrop while 15 pots with an extra biochar application of 120 kg ha-1 for cabbage only. Results showed that High nitrogen plus High phosphorus (N + P) including Low phosphorus plus Medium biochar (Low P + MC), Low nitrogen plus Low phosphorus plus High biochar (Low N + Low P + HC), and Low nitrogen plus Low biochar (Low N + Low C) supported the height of cucumber while Low nitrogen plus Low biochar (Low N + Low C) and High nitrogen (High N) positively influenced height of tomato. There was no significant difference in the number of cucumber fruits produced since the control and high N treatments significantly got the same number of cucumber fruit. In contrast, Low nitrogen plus Low biochar (Low N + LC) treated to tomato crop got the highest number of tomato fruits. In the second experiment, the Highest biochar including High biochar and Low C (Low biochar), favoured cabbage’s height while no significant effort in the treatments to support carrot height. It was estimated that the High C treatment gave the highest carbon dioxide emission while the Highest C treatment stored carbon dioxide in the soil.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".