Microbiological community analysis of vermicompost tea and its influence on the growth of vegetables and cereals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vermicompost, the digestion product of organic material by earthworms, has been widely reported to have a more positive effect on plant growth and plant health than conventional compost. A study was conducted to investigate the effects of different vermicompost elutriates (aerated compost teas) on soils and plant growth. The teas were analyzed by chemical, microbiological, and molecular methods accompanied by plant growth tests at laboratory and field scale. The number of microorganisms in the teas increased during the extraction process and was affected by substrate addition. The vermicompost tea found to increase plant growth best under laboratory tests was applied to cereals (wheat and barley) and vegetables (Raphanus sativus, Rucola selvatica, and Pisum sativum) in a field study. The results revealed no effects of tea application on plant yield; however, sensoric tests indicated an improvement in crop quality. The soils from laboratory and field studies were investigated to detect possible microbial or chemical changes. The results indicated that minor changes to the soil microbial community occurred following tea application by foliar spray in both the laboratory-scale and field-scale experiments.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".