MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388522982 · doi:10.3390/nitrogen4040024

Simulating Maize Response to Split-Nitrogen Fertilization Using Easy-to-Collect Local Features

2023· article· en· W4388522982 on OpenAlexaffabout
Léon‐Étienne Parent

Bibliographic record

VenueNitrogen · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicCrop Yield and Soil Fertility
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSowingAgronomyTillageZea maysNitrogenGrowing seasonHuman fertilizationSeedingEnvironmental scienceCropMathematicsGrain yieldCrop yieldSoil textureAnimal scienceSoil scienceSoil waterChemistryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Maize (Zea mays) is a high-nitrogen (N)-demanding crop potentially contributing to nitrate contamination and emissions of nitrous oxide. The N fertilization is generally split between sowing time and the V6 stage. The right split N rate to apply at V6 and minimize environmental damage is challenging. Our objectives were to (1) predict maize response to added N at V6 using machine learning (ML) models; and (2) cross-check model outcomes by independent on-farm trials. We assembled 461 N trials conducted in Eastern Canada between 1992 and 2022. The dataset to predict grain yield comprised N dosage, weekly precipitations and corn heat units, seeding date, previous crop, tillage practice, soil series, soil texture, organic matter content, and pH. Random forest and XGBoost predicted grain yield accurately at the V6 stage (R2 = 0.78–0.80; RSME and MAE = 1.22–1.29 and 0.96–0.98 Mg ha−1, respectively). Model accuracy up to the V6 stage was comparable to that of the full-season prediction. The response patterns simulated by varying the N doses showed that grain yield started to plateau at 125–150 kg total N ha−1 in eight out of ten on-farm trials conducted independently. There was great potential for economic and environmental gains from ML-assisted N fertilization.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.819
Threshold uncertainty score0.354

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 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

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNitrogenSame topicCrop Yield and Soil FertilityFrench-language works237,207