Cadmium-containing wood ash in a pine forest: effects on humus microflora and cadmium concentrations in mushrooms, berries, and needles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The cadmium (Cd) concentration of wood ash (130 mg·kg 1 ) is higher than allowed for agriculture fertilizers (3 mg·kg 1 ). Therefore, the objectives of this field study were to test if the Cd of wood ash has the potential to affect the coniferous forest humus microflora and if Cd enters the human food chain. These objectives were tested with ash (A) and Cd-spiked ash (ACd, 400 mg Cd·kg 1 ) at a fertilization rate of 3 t·ha 1 . Microbial community structure, respiration, needle litter decomposition, growth rates and Cd tolerance of bacteria, and the bioavailability of Cd were measured. Also, Cd concentrations of humus, soil percolation water, mushrooms, fruits and leaves of berries, and needles were determined. The amount of Cd in the percolation water or bioavailable Cd, measured with a bacterial biosensor, and Cd tolerance of bacteria did not increase, although the ACd treatment increased the amount of humus total and extractable Cd. Only the ACd and not the A treatment caused Cd concentration increment in Lactarius rufus and berries of Empetrum nigrum. In spite of the high Cd concentration of the spiked ash, it did not have harmful effects on humus microorganisms during this 4-year study. Thus, wood ash is safe to use as a fertilizer in forests.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".