MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413961504 · doi:10.5376/ijh.2025.15.0020

Effect of Different Nutrient Media on Okra (<i>Abelmoschus esculentus</i> L. Moench) Production in Kailali, Nepal

2025· article· en· W4413961504 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tara Chandra Joshi, Namrata Acharya, Hari Prasad Ghimire, Rejina Sapkota

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Horticulture · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural Practices and Plant Genetics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAbelmoschusNutrientHorticultureProduction (economics)BiologyEconomicsEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An experiment was conducted in Kailali district, Nepal, to evaluate the effect of different nutrient media on the production of okra (Abelmoschus esculentus L. Moench).The study employed a single-factorial Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) with eight treatments replicated three times.The treatments included farmyard manure (FYM), vermicompost, poultry manure, synthetic fertilizer (NPK), 50% NPK + 50% FYM, 50% NPK + 50% vermicompost, 50% NPK + 50% poultry manure, and a no-fertilizer control.The okra variety Arka Anamika was used, and data were collected on growth and yield parameters such as plant height, number of leaves and branches per plant, fruit count per plant, fruit length and diameter, and total yield (ton/ha).Measurements were taken from ten randomly selected plants from the central rows of each plot, and data were analyzed using R software.Results indicated that poultry manure led to the highest yield at 21.18 ton/ha and significantly improved growth characteristics such as plant height and leaf number while control being the lowest 9.95 ton/ha.Conversely, the control and synthetic fertilizer treatments showed the poorest performance.The findings suggest that poultry manure is an effective nutrient source for enhancing okra growth and yield.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.582
Threshold uncertainty score0.302

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.227 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of HorticultureSame topicAgricultural Practices and Plant GeneticsFrench-language works237,207