Sulphur application does not improve wheat yield and protein concentration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Karamanos, R. E., Harapiak, J. T. and Flore N. A. 2013. Sulphur application does not improve wheat yield and protein concentration. Can. J. Soil Sci. 93: 223-228. Grain protein plays an important role in the milling and baking quality of wheat (Triticum aestivum). The question is whether application of sulphur, an important constituent of proteins and amino acids, impacts wheat grain protein concentration. A 3-yr 10-site experiment was set up to determine if of sulphur (S) fertilization (0 and 25 kg S ha-1) affects Canada west red spring (CWRS) and Durum grain yield and protein levels, when combined with various rates of nitrogen (N) fertilizer (0, 40, 60, 80 and 100 kg N ha-1). Soils at the 10 sites varied from S deficient to S sufficient, based on criteria in western Canada. Application of 25 kg S ha-1 resulted in no yield or grain protein concentration increases, regardless of the level of N fertilizer applied or the level of soil “available” S (0-30 cm). However, high N fertilizer rates (80 and 100 kg N ha-1) plus S fertilization improved yield and protein concentration when growing season (May, June, July) precipitation was favourable for CWRS and Durum wheat. In conclusion, we suggest that indiscriminate application of S fertilizer will not increase protein concentration for CWRS and Durum wheat grain.
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) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".