Effects of vermicompost and hot compost integration on carrot ( <i>Daucus carota</i> L.) growth and yield
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Organic fertilisation offers sustainable alternatives to chemical fertilisers. Therefore, the effects of two composts (vermicompost and hot compost) and a commercial NPK fertiliser (23:10:5:6S + 1.0 Zn) on the growth and yield of carrots under field conditions were evaluated. Vermicompost and hot compost were applied as single and combined treatments in a randomised complete block design (RCBD) replicated three times. Data were subjected to Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and repeated measures ANOVA in RCBD depending on the structure. The combined application of vermicompost and hot compost significantly improved shoot height ( p = 0.027) and carrot root weight ( p = 0.039). No considerable interaction effects between treatments and time on canopy coverage (%) ( p = 0.237) and number of leaves per plant ( p = 0.071) were observed. Although vermicompost (1.68 kg m −2 ) and combined composts (1.53 kg m −2 ) produced numerically higher root yields than NPK fertiliser (1.15 kg m −2 ), the differences were not statistically significant ( p = 0.206). Interestingly, sensory evaluation results revealed that single-vermicompost treatments and combined compost applications improved carrot tuber root flavour ( p = 0.015), tuber root texture ( p = 0.023), and tuber root water content ( p = 0.023), but not tuber root sweetness ( p = 0.717). Vermicompost and hot compost, whether applied individually or in combination, provide a sustainable alternative to chemical fertilisers by improving soil fertility and enhancing carrot growth, yield, and quality.
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".