Soybean responds infrequently to phosphorus fertilization in Manitoba
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Soybean ( Glycine max (L.) Merr.) production in Manitoba has increased substantially over the last 20 years, raising questions about phosphorus (P) fertilization in this region. Between 2013 and 2015, a study was conducted across 28 sites in Manitoba to evaluate the effect of P fertilizer rate and placement on soybean plant stand and seed yield. Treatments were 22.5, 45, and 90 kg P 2 O 5 ha −1 applied as monoammonium phosphate, seed-placed, side-banded or broadcast, plus an unfertilized control treatment. Plant stand reduction due to seed-placed fertilizer toxicity was observed at five of 28 site-years, typically at the rate of 90 kg P 2 O 5 ha −1 . Stand reduction was most frequent on medium- to coarse-textured soils, dry soils or when seeding equipment had low seedbed utilization. Seed yield was reduced at two site-years due to seed placing 90 kg P 2 O 5 ha −1 , which reduced plant stands below the recommended threshold of 247 000 plants ha −1 . Phosphorus fertilization did not increase seed yield, regardless of P rate, P placement, or Olsen soil test P level, except for one site-year where 45 and 90 kg P 2 O 5 ha −1 increased seed yield by 343 and 430 kg ha −1 , respectively. The extremely infrequent response to P fertilizer in combination with the high rate of P removal indicates that soybeans can use soil P reservoirs that are less available to other crops. Nevertheless, soybean growers in Manitoba should consider strategies for applying supplemental P to soybean or other crops in their rotation to maintain P fertility in soil.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".