Soil Fertilization and Maize-Wheat Grain Production with Alternative Sources of Nutrients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study evaluated regional sources of nutrients to improve the soil fertility status and yield of maize-wheat succession in Southern Brazil. The treatments were: T1: no fertilization; T2: liming with dolomitic marble; T3: alternative liming (AL) with limestone interbedded with shale; T4: AL + 50% P - with Arad natural phosphate (P-ANP) + 50% P – triple superphosphate (P-TSP); T5: AL + 100% P-ANP; T6: AL + 100% P-ANP + 100% K-rich monzogranite; T7: AL + 100% P-ANP + 100% N from tung pressed cake (N-TPC); T8: AL + 100% P-ANP + 100% K-rich monzogranite + 100% N-TPC + 100% S; T9: AL + 100% NPK recommendation (urea, TSP and KCl). Immediate and residual effects were evaluated over 2.5 years (90, 360 and 900 d) on soil fertility and maize - wheat yield. The limestone interbedded with shale released Ca, Mg and corrected soil acidity similarly to dolomitic marble. The monzogranite increased the available K in soil, although improvements of the final product could enhance K release. The fertilization strategies used in T4, T7 and T8 presented a relative productivity index of 108, 111 and 108% when compared to T9 for maize plus wheat yield, while T3 (U$=1223) and T4 (U$=1284) resulted in higher profits (+4.2 and +9.4%, respectively) than T9 (U$=1174). The limestone interbedded with shale combined with 50% of P-ANP + 50% of P – TSP (T4) provided the best economical and technical results, highlighting the potential of selected rock powders for soil fertility correction and plant-nutrients supply.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".