Unveiling the Nutrient Signatures in Corn (Zea mays L.) Grains: A Pivotal Indicator of Yield Potential
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The composition simplex (N, P, K, Ca, and Mg) of the leaf is the main score used by different approaches, like the Diagnosis and Recommendation Integrated System and Compositional Nutrient Diagnosis, to study nutrient interactions and balance in plant leaves. However, the application and validation of these concepts to grain composition remains unexplored. Contrary to foliar analysis’s early intervention for nutrient deficiency detection and correction, applying this approach to seeds assesses diverse cultivars’ potential, enabling anticipation of their adaptation to climate conditions and informed selection for future crops. In the present study, a collected database of more than 924 scores, including the grain yield (kg ha−1) and the nutrient composition (mg kg−1) of different corn varieties, is used to develop a novel nutrient-based diagnostic approach to identify reliable markers of nutrient imbalance. A ‘nutrient signature’ model is proposed based on the impact of the environmental conditions on the nutrient indices and composition (N, P, K, Ca, and Mg) of the corn grains. The yield threshold used to differentiate between low- and high-yielding subpopulations is established at 12,000 kg ha−1, and the global nutrient imbalance index (GNII) of 2.2 is determined using the chi-square distribution function and validated by the Cate–Nelson partitioning method, which correlated yield data distribution with the GNII. Therefore, the nutrient compositions were classified into highly balanced (GNII ≤ 1.6), balanced (1.6 < GNII ≤ 2.2), and imbalanced (GNII > 2.2). In addition, we found that the Xgboost model’s predictive accuracy for the GNII is significantly affected by soil pH, organic matter, and rainfall. These results pave the way for adapted agricultural practices by providing insights into the nutrient dynamics of corn grains under varying environmental conditions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".