Once in Three-Year Deep-Banding and Annual Shallow-Banding of P, K and Cu Fertilizer Effects on Crops and Soil Nutrients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deep-banding of the immobile nutrients (P, K, and Cu) is considered one technique that may improve crop production under temperate dryland systems, where moister soil conditions prevail at seeding followed by relatively drier soil during the growing period. The objectives were to compare growth and yield of canola (Brassica napus L.), field pea’s (Pisum sativum L.) and wheat (Triticum aestivum L.); and nutrient concentrations in crops and soil from once in three-year deep-banding (12.5-15 cm) and annual shallow-banding (3.75 to 5 cm diagonally deeper than seeding depth) of P, K and Cu under direct seeding systems. Small plot trials were conducted at the three sites; representing Brown (Dark Brown Chernozem), Black (Black Chernozem), and Grey (Dark Grey Luvisol) soil zones in Alberta, Canada; which represent crop growing conditions for most areas of western Canada. The nine treatments were annual shallow-banding and once in three year deep-banding of P, K, Cu and PKCU nutrients plus a control (no P, K, or Cu fertilizer). Applied thrice the recommended rate for deep-banding (in 2018) treatments and the recommended rate for the annual shallow-banding treatments in 2018, 2019 and 2020. All three phases of pea’s-wheat-canola rotation were grown at each site to generate nine years of data for each crop. The density, height, NDVI (normalized difference vegetation index) and biomass of plants, yield for crops and nutrient concentrations in seed and biomass of crops and soil showed significantly positive responses to P, K, and PKCu additions in some cases; generally not linked to the deep or shallow placement of tested nutrients. Changes in nutrient concentrations in seed and biomass of crops in response to nutrient additions were not consistent. Treatments with P showed response more often than with the K and Cu. The soil P and Cu concentrations increased in response to their additions in some cases, but no change was observed from the K addition. Once in three-year deep-banding or annual shallow-banding methods were equally effective. The findings provide another option (once in three year deep-banding) for applying the P, K and Cu fertilizers.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".