Effect of Pit and Soil Types on Growth and Development, Nutrient Content and Fruit Quality of Pomegranate in the Central Deccan Plateau Region, India
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To enhance pomegranate production on marginal gravelly lands, standardized planting techniques were evaluated in an 8-year-old orchard. Trenching, wider pit excavation, pit digging, and auger digs with dimensions of 1 and 2 m were employed. Utilizing native soil from barren land, with or without spent wash, and mixing it with black soil up to 1 m deep, growth parameters, leaf nutrients, fruit production, and fruit quality were assessed. The trench and wider pit methods outperformed others, yielding greater above-ground biomass (>70.3 kg tree−1), root biomass (>24.5 kg, tree−1), and cross-sectional area (>3.30 m² tree−1). These methods also produced longer roots (>4.0 m tree−1) and higher leaf phosphorus (>0.28%) and potassium (>1.81%) levels, fruit juice content (>48.50%), and total soluble solids (>16.05°) compared to other planting methods. This resulted in higher and more sustainable fruit yield production under the trench and wider pit planting methods (>7.21 t ha−1). Similarly, the native and black soil mixture produced healthy fruit trees, improved fruit quality, and sustainably higher fruit yield over the native soil alone. In summary, the trench and wider pit methods (2–3 m³), combined with a soil mixture, are recommended for sustainable, high-quality fruit production in shallow gravelly terrains, thereby improving food security and the livelihoods of farmers in arid regions.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".