Effect of Potassium and Zinc on Soil Properties and Fraction of Potassium and Zinc in Soil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A field experiment was carried out on Agronomy Farm, B. A. College of Agriculture, Anand Agricultural University, Anand during rabi season of the year 2020-21. The experiment comprising nine treatment combinations consisted of three levels of potassium (0, 20 and 40 kg/ha) and three levels of zinc (0, 2.5 and 5.0 kg/ha). These treatments were evaluated in Randomized Block Design (factorial) with four replications. The soil of the experimental plot was loamy sand in texture, alkaline in reaction, low in organic carbon and available nitrogen, medium in available phosphorus, potassium and zinc. Results of the experiment revealed that the available K2O in soil was significantly increased due to application of 40 kg K2O/ha (K2) and was found to be at par with application of 20 kg K2O/ha (K1). All other chemical properties of soil (pH, EC, organic carbon, available N, P2O5, S, Fe, Mn, Zn and Cu) were not differ significantly due to application of different levels of potassium. Levels of zinc also failed to produce its significant effect on chemical properties of soil except available Zn in soil as it was significantly increased with the treatment of Z2 (5.0 kg Zn/ha) than control but was found to be at par with treatment Z1 (2.5 kg Zn/ha). Moreover, no any chemical property of soil differ due to the interaction of different levels of potassium and zinc. The water soluble K and exchangeable K fractions in soil significantly increased with the treatment of K2 (40 kg K2O/ha) otherwise non-exchangeable K, total K and different zinc fractions in soil did not differ significantly by the different levels of potassium. Different potassium fractions and total Zn fraction in soil were found to be non-significant under the different zinc levels but all the zinc fractions in soil (water soluble plus exchangeable Zn, carbonate bound Zn, Fe/Mn oxide bound Zn, organically bound Zn and residual Zn) significantly increased with the treatment of Z2 (5.0 kg Zn/ha) and was remained at par with treatment Z1 (2.5 kg Zn/ha). The interaction between potassium and zinc failed to influence significantly on potassium and zinc factions 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 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".