MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393225785 · doi:10.53555/sfs.v8i3.2394

A Comprehensive Review on Role Of Micronutrients In Legumes

2022· review· en· W4393225785 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Aashutosh Kumar Tiwari, Nitish Karn, Anil Kumar Sharma

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Survey in Fisheries Sciences · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Micronutrient Interactions and Effects
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicronutrientAgronomyChemistryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This review article delves into the pivotal role of micronutrients, including iron, zinc, and manganese, in legumes, elucidating their impact on plant growth, development, and overall nutritional quality. Micronutrient deficiencies in legumes can lead to detrimental consequences such as stunted growth, reduced yield, and compromised plant health. Moreover, the nutritional benefits of legumes for both human and animal consumption are underscored, emphasizing their significance in providing essential nutrients like proteins, carbohydrates, and dietary fibers. Furthermore, the review explores how legumes contribute to sustainable agriculture practices through nitrogen fixation, symbiotic relationships with bacteria, and soil health improvement. By understanding and managing the micronutrient requirements of legumes, we can enhance their symbiotic nitrogen fixation capacity, improve soil fertility, and reduce dependency on synthetic fertilizers. In conclusion, this review underscores the importance of addressing micronutrient deficiencies in legumes to optimize crop productivity, ensure food security, and promote sustainable agricultural practices. By integrating effective management strategies and biofortification techniques, we can harness the nutritional potential of legumes to support global health and well-being while fostering environmental sustainability.

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)0.002
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.970
Threshold uncertainty score0.524

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.250
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.066 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Survey in Fisheries SciencesSame topicPlant Micronutrient Interactions and EffectsFrench-language works237,207