Effect of phosphate source, rate and cadmium content and use of <i>Penicillium bilaii</i> on phosphorus, zinc and cadmium concentration in durum wheat grain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Field studies were conducted over 3 years at several locations in Alberta and Manitoba, Canada to evaluate the impact of phosphate fertiliser containing varying concentrations of Cd on grain yield and P, Zn and Cd concentration in durum wheat grain. The effect of a seed treatment with Penicillium bilaii , a phosphate‐solubilising fungus, was also examined. P bilaii had little effect on crop yield, nutrient concentration or the concentration of Cd in the grain under the conditions of this study. Fertilisation with monoammonium phosphate consistently increased Cd concentration and Cd/Zn ratio and decreased Zn concentration in durum wheat. Increases in Cd concentration in durum wheat were unrelated to Cd concentration in the fertiliser, although the concentration of Cd in the fertiliser sources varied from 0.2 to 186.0 µg g −1 . Increased Cd concentration with phosphate application may be related to high ionic strength, reduced pH and enhanced root proliferation in the microregion around the fertiliser granules. Enhanced root development in response to phosphate fertilisation may increase the accumulation of Cd. Reduction in Zn accumulation associated with phosphate application may also contribute to the increase in Cd concentration in durum grain, possibly through enhancement of Cd translocation to the grain. While reduction in Cd concentration in phosphate fertilisers will reduce long‐term Cd accumulation in soils, use of low‐Cd fertiliser at commercially practical levels of fertilisation is unlikely to reduce Cd concentration in durum wheat in the year of application. © 2002 Society of Chemical Industry
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".