MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Impact of paddy straw and Bio-decomposer with inorganic fertilizers on soil health in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)

2025· article· en· W4416572374 on OpenAlexaff
Manjul Kumar, Arun Alfred David, S. Arora

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Soil and Water Conservation · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
Canadian institutionsNorthern Alberta Institute of Technology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDecomposerStrawSoil healthCrop residueResidue (chemistry)Soil biodiversityNutrientSoil organic matterAgriculture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study investigated the effect of inorganic fertilizers, paddy straw (rice residue), and Halo-CRD biodecomposer on the soil health of post-harvest wheat fields in the subtropical region of Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh during the Rabi season of 2019–20 and 2020-21. Results demonstrated the effectiveness of integrated residue management in improving soil physical, chemical and biological properties. There was a significant build-up of soil organic carbon in T7 (Rice residue treated with microbial decomposer Halo-CRD+ RDF@100%) 0.85 and 0.59% and 0.91 and 0.60% content in soil during both seasons of 2019– 20 and 2020-21. Maximum content of available N (257.26, 261.52 kg ha-1 and 249.43, 251.35 kg ha-1), available P (21.62, 22.14 kg ha-1 and 19.67, 19.85 kg ha-1) and K (219.21, 223.20 kg ha-1 and 181.38, 182.68 kg ha-1) was observed in treatment T7 during both seasons. The bacterial and fungal count ranged from 6.40 to 17.70 ×105 and 3.10 to 8.15×105 cfu g-1 dry soil, respectively. Incorporating microbial decomposers enhanced nutrient-use efficiency and soil health while reducing nutrient losses. The findings advocate integrating rice residue management with microbial decomposer Halo-CRD and balanced fertilization to enhance soil chemical, physical and biological properties, improve soil health, and mitigate residue burning’s environmental impacts.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.207

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.240
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 designObservational
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 venueJournal of Soil and Water ConservationSame topicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsFrench-language works237,207