Improving maize production through nitrogen supply from ten rarely-used organic resources in Ghana
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Where there is limited availability of conventional fertilizers, the use of organic materials is considered a viable alternative to increase the productive capacity of soils. Many potential plant residues remain underutilized due to limited research on their use as a nutrient source. In this study, the nitrogen supplying capabilities of ten rarely-used leaf biomass sources (Acacia auriculiformis, Baphia nitida, Albizia zygia, Azadirachta indica, Senna siamea, Senna spectabilis, Tithonia diversifolia, Gliricidia sepium, Leucaena leucocephala and Zea mays) were tested based on their nutrient content, N mineralization patterns and effect on maize yield (in comparison with inorganic fertilizer). N mineralization was studied in the laboratory using an incubation experiment. Field trials were also established using a randomized complete block design. Plant residues were applied at 5 t dry matter ha−1 a week before planting maize while fertilizer was split-applied at 90 kg N ha−1 on designated plots. From the results on plant residue chemistry, most of the plant residues recorded relatively high N concentration (≥24.9 g kg−1) and low C/N ratio (≤20.1) although neither N content nor C/N ratio significantly (p > 0.05) affected their N mineralization patterns. Leaf biomass application of B. nitida, A. auriculiformis, A. zygia and maize stover resulted in an initial net N immobilization that lasted for 14 days. Application of all plant materials significantly increased the biological yield and N uptake of maize with G. sepium and T. diversifolia producing the greatest impact especially in the major rainy season. Relative to the control, total grain yield after four cropping seasons was comparable between inorganic fertilizer (9.2 t ha−1), G. sepium (8.8 t ha−1) and T. diversifolia (9.4 t ha−1) treatments. The results on maize biological yield were significantly correlated with the effects of the treatments on N uptake. The findings suggest that in locations where inorganic fertilizers are limited, leaf biomass from G. sepium and T. diversifolia could offer the most suitable option in comparison with the other species used in this study.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".