Influence of biosolids on phosphorus sorption characteristics of a Vertisol in comparison with manures and fertilizer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Regulation of manure application in Manitoba has raised the question of whether or not biosolids application should be regulated in the same way. This study examined the effects of biosolids (BIO) applications on P sorption characteristics of a Vertisol in comparison with dairy cattle (DAIRY) and hog (HOG) manures, and monoammonium phosphate (MAP) fertilizer using the classical sorption isotherm and single point sorption index. Pertinent chemical properties and degree of P saturation (DPS) were also determined. The sorption maximum (Smax) in the control was reduced from 655 mg kg-1, to a range of 536–655 mg kg-1 with BIO, 559–650 mg kg-1 with MAP, 402–568 mg kg-1 with DAIRY, and 350–587 mg kg-1 with HOG depending upon the rate of P added. The lower DPS in the soil amended with BIO suggests a lower risk of P loss with biosolids compared with manures. The higher P sorption capacity of biosolids-amended soils compared with soils amended with manures suggest that Ca added with BIO increased the number of P sorption sites by a similar proportion to the amount of P added. Key words: Biosolids, P sorption isotherm, degree of P saturation, labile P, non-labile P
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".