Differential growth and yield by canola (<i>Brassica napus</i> L.) and wheat (<i>Triticum aestivum</i> L.) arising from alterations in chemical properties of sandy soils due to additions of fly ash
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a need for field trials on testing agronomic potential of coal fly ash to engender routine use of this technology. Two field trials were undertaken with alkaline and acidic fly ashes supplied at between 3 and 6 Mg ha⁻¹ to acidic soils and sown to wheat and canola at Richmond (Eastern Australia) and to wheat only at Merredin (Western Australia). RESULTS: Ash addition marginally (P< 0.10) raised the pH in the top soil layers at both sites. The exceptionally dry season at both sites constrained yields and thwarted any likelihood of gaining yield benefits from ash-induced improvements in soil conditions. Yield improvements due to ash addition were absent at Merredin and only marginal at Richmond, where no elevated accumulation of B, Mo, Se, P or S in either the straw or seeds of wheat was observed; canola increased accumulation of Mo and Se in its shoot with acidic fly ash, but it was well below phyto toxic levels. Simulations of wheat using APSIM at Richmond over a 100-year period (1909-2008) predicted yield increases in 52% of years with addition of ash at 3.0 Mg ha⁻¹ compared with 24% of years with addition of ash at 6.0 Mg ha⁻¹. The simulated yield increases did not exceed 40% over the control with addition of 6 Mg ha⁻¹ ash, but was between 40% and 50% with an addition rate of 3 Mg ha⁻¹. CONCLUSION: We found no evidence of phytotoxicity in either crop in this unusually dry year and there is still a need for further field assessment in years with favourable rainfall to enable development of clear recommendations on fly ash rates for optimum yield benefits.
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".