Nitrogen fertilizer product and timing alternatives exist for forage production in the Peace region of Alberta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Karamanos, R. E. and Stevenson, F. C. 2013. Nitrogen fertilizer product and timing alternatives exist for forage production in the Peace region of Alberta. Can. J. Plant Sci. 93: 151-160. Four different N sources [ammonium nitrate (NIT), urea (UR), polymer-coated urea (PCU), and N-(n-butyl) thiophosphoric triamide-treated urea (AGR)] were applied to stands of pure meadow bromegrass (Bromus beibersteinii L.) or a 50:50 smooth bromegrass (Bromus inermis L.)-alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) mixture in late fall and early spring at four N rates (0, 60, 80 and 100 kg N ha-1) over a 3-yr (2003-2005) period. The N treatments generally increased forage responses, but the response net revenue to N treatment was rarely positive and at times was negative, especially for PCU. On average, PCU resulted in lower yield and protein concentration, lesser N efficiency, and lesser profit relative to other forms of N. This difference was more pronounced in the spring and was less notable at Rycroft, the location with the bromegrass-alfalfa mixture. Also, greater N fertilizer rates increased the yield, protein concentration, total N uptake, and profit for all fertilizer forms. The exceptions to the preceding were N fertilizer rate did not affect forage responses for PCU and at the location with the brome-alfalfa mixture. Urea or AGR provided satisfactory agronomic alternatives to ammonium nitrate when applied in early spring at sufficient rates.
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".