MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7037399868

The effect of canola cultivar on water extraction and nitrogen and sulphur uptake

2005· dissertation· en· W7037399868 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueMspace (University of Manitoba) · 2005
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSubterranean biodiversity and taxonomy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCanolaCultivarNitrogenGrowing seasonFertilizerBiomass (ecology)Randomized block designCrop
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study was to assess the mechanism that leads to enhanced uptake of N and S by a hybrid canola cultivar. Two canola cultivars, one hybrid (45H21) and one open-pollinated (Conquest) were grown at a single location near Rosebank, MB during the 2003 growing season to study the impact of canola cultivar and S fertilization on the uptake of water, N and S from the soil. The experimental design was a Randomized Complete Block where each cultivar was exposed to three fertilizer treatments: a control, 160 kg N ha-1: 0 kg S ha-1, and 160 kg N ha-1: 27 kg S ha-1. Soil and plant N and S concentrations were measured at midseason and maturity to determine the uptake of N and S by each cultivar. Soil moisture content was monitored throughout the growing season to study the activity of the canola roots. As well, soil cores were removed at midseason to determine the difference in rooting depth by each cultivar. The year following the canola crop experiment, AC Barrie spring wheat was seeded to the canola stubble without N fertilizer to study the effect of N and S uptake by each canola cultivar on a subsequent crop. Biomass was greatest for the hybrid canola cultivar at both sample periods. The concentration of N and S in the canola tissue at midseason was higher in the open-pollinated cultivar, which offset the biomass difference; therefore, the total N and S accumulated by each cultivar was not statistically different. At maturity, the difference in tissue concentrations was seen for S only. The addition of fertilizer caused an increase in biomass proeduction as well as a significant increase in N accumulation at midseason and maturity, and an increase in S accumulation at maturity only. Seed yield was highest for the hybrid cultivar and increased with fertilizer application for both cultivars. There was no interaction between cultivar and fertilizer treatment, indicating that each cultivar responded similarly to fertilizer addition. There was no significant difference in rooting depth between the two cultivars; however, the hybrid cultivar removed 58 mm more water than the open-pollinated cultivar over the 10 to 110 cm soil depth during the growing season, for the N plus S fertilizer treatment only. The difference in root activity may be attributed to the greater biomass of the hybrid canola, leading to higher rates of transpiration. Water use efficiency (WUE) was greater for the hybrid canola cultivar due primarily to the higher seed yield of this cultivar. The biomass accumulated by the wheat seeded onto the open-polliinated canola stubble waas numerically greater than that on the hybrid stubble, but this was significant for the midseason sampling period only. Biomass accumulation and total recovery (biomass and soil) of N and S by the wheat seeded onto the open-pollinated stubble was numerically greater, but not significantly so. Again, there was no interaction between cultivar and fertilizer treatment on either accumulation or recovery of N and S by the wheat crop.

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.

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 score0.444
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.181
Teacher spread0.167 · 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