MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4378905311 · doi:10.5376/ijh.2023.13.0006

Effect of Plant Nutrition on Fruit Set

2023· article· en· W4378905311 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Amar Bahadur Pun, Asmita Shrestha, Kalyani Mishra Tripathi, Dilli Ram Baral

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Horticulture · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Physiology and Cultivation Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSet (abstract data type)BiologyFruit setHorticultureComputer scienceBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fruit set and retention determine the ultimate yield of mandarin; as adequate mineral elements play key role. The study investigated the effects of foliar applications of nitrogen, potassium, calcium including boron and zinc; alone and their combinations; on fruit set, growth and yield of mandarin; the experiments conducting in the Dhankuta district of Nepal during 2019 and 2020. The results revealed that severe flowers/fruitlets drop occurred to a range of 97.7% to 92.7% during bloom fruit set period as the highest set (7.3%) occurred at foliar spray of NK + micro-nutrients compared to the control treatment (2.3%). Accordingly, compared to the control treatments, spray application of NK+ micro-nutrients, and NPK soil + micro-nutrients increased the higher fruit set by 151.7 and 41.3% respectively during post-bloom since 28 th March until 1 st May. In regard to fruit drop, two treatments of foliar sprays: NPK + B + Zn + Ca; and NK + B + Zn + Ca had the lower fruit drops by 15.8 and 15.4 during June; and by 16.2 and 15.9% during preharvest period respectively, compared to the control treatment. The highest fruit diameter (58.9 mm) and weight (63.4 g) were found at the treatment NPK + B + Zn + Ca among the treatments; likewise, the corresponding the highest number of fruits (1790 nos) and total fruit yield (101.81 kg) per tree were also observed at the same treatment.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.613
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of HorticultureSame topicPlant Physiology and Cultivation StudiesFrench-language works237,207