Fertilizer Rate and Type Affect Sedum-vegetated Green Roof Mat Plant Performance and Leachate Nutrient Content
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compared the effect of fertilizer rates and types on plant performance and leached nutrients for an installed sedum-vegetated green roof mat system. Sedum-vegetated mats in non-fertilized plots (control) were compared with plots fertilized with 16N–2.6P–10K plus Minors 5–6 month controlled-release fertilizer (CRF) at 5, 10, 15, or 20 g·m −2 nitrogen (N) or 5 g·m −2 N of a fly-larvae processed chicken manure (Sus). Plot overall appearance was among the highest for 10 g·m −2 N in Mar., May, June, and July 2012, whereas 15 and 20 g·m −2 N resulted in the highest winter injury ranking in Mar. 2012. Vegetative coverage was highest for 10 and 15 g·m −2 N in Oct. 2011 but did not differ among treatments in 2012. Sedum spp. composition within plots remained closest to the original when fertilized at 10 g·m −2 N. Of all species, S. acre flowered for the longest duration and flowered longer in 10 g·m −2 N than 15 g·m −2 N or Sus. Leaf greenness of S. acre for 5, 10, 15, and 20 g·m −2 N was higher than the control in May 2012. Leached amounts of NH 4 + , NO 3 – , potassium (K), calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), sulfur (S), sodium (Na), iron (Fe), and aluminum (Al) did not differ among treatments, and cadmium (Cd), chromium (Cr), copper (Cu), mercury (Hg), nickel (Ni), and lead (Pb) were not detected. All nutrients but NO 3 – in all plots and zinc (Zn) in the 5 g·m −2 N (CRF and Sus) and control plots were leached at levels above target nutrient loss thresholds. Among fertilizer types, Sus leached more phosphorus (P) without greater plant performance compared with 5 g·m −2 N CRF. A fertilizer rate of 10 g·m −2 N is recommended to benefit plant performance of this green roof system. However, in the first year after installation, to prevent negative environmental impacts resulting from initial substrate fertility, no fertilizer (CRF or Sus) is needed for this green roof system.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".