Influence of Nutrient Management Practices on Growth, Flowering and Yield Attributes of Cucumber (Cucumis sativus)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Field experiments were conducted at AICRP on Vegetable Crops, operating under Odisha University of Agriculture and Technology, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India during summer season of 2017 and 2018 to find out the impact of various nutrient management practices on growth, yield attributes and yield of cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.). Twelve nutrient management practices such as, T1 (Absolute Control), T2 (RDF through Fertilizer (100:60:60 NPK ha-1), T3 (½ RDF + Biofertilizer consortia (BF) i.e., Azospirillum, Azotobacter and PSB @ 4 kg ha-1 in 1:1:1), T4 (Vermicompost @ 4 tha-1), T5 (VC @ 2 tha-1+ BFs), T6 (½ RDF + VC @ 2 tha-1+ BFs), T7 (RDF+ VC @ 2 tha-1+ Biofertilizer consortia), T8 (FYM @ 20 tha-1), T9 (FYM @ 10 tha-1+ BFs), T10 (½ RDF + FYM @ 10 tha-1+ BFs), T11 (RDF+ FYM @ 10 tha-1+ BFs) and T12 (½ RDF + FYM @ 10 tha-1 + VC @ 2 tha-1+ BFs), were evaluated by adopting RBD replicated thrice. The pooled results over two years revealed significant variations among the nutrient management practices for all the characters under study. Invariably, INM practices recorded significantly better vegetative growth, earliness in flowering, fruit yield and yield attributing parameters over inorganic, organic sources, BFs and absolute control. The results revealed integrated application of ½ RDF+FYM @ 10tha-1+VC @ 2tha-1+BFs recorded significantly higher maximum vegetative growth parameters (i.e., vine length of 296.4 m with 4.1 primary branches vine-1), induced earliness in flowering (i.e., days to appearance of male flowers : 30.2, days to appearance of female flowers : 31.7, sex ratio of : 12.8, fruit yield attributing parameters (i.e., fruit girth : 15.0 cm, fruits vine-1 : 8.6, days to 1st fruit harvest : 45.3), days to final harvest : 80.1, yield i.e., marketable yield (12.6 kg plot-1, 156.0 q ha-1, 15.6 tha-1) and total fruit yield (13.9 kg plot-1, 172.2 q ha-1, 17.2 tha-1 ). Thus it may be concluded that integrated application of nutrients from inorganic, organic with soil inoculation of biofertilizer consortia not only increased significantly increased growth, flowering and fruit yield in cucumber.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".