Toxicity thresholds for oat (<i>Avena sativa</i> L.) grown in Ni-impacted agricultural soils near Port Colborne, Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study established Ni phytotoxicity thresholds for oat (Avena sativa L.) in four soil types, each created by blending a low and a high Ni soil, to generate a range of concentrations. The first quartile effective concentration (EC 25 ) for soil and shoot tissue Ni concentration and reduction in shoot dry weight (DW) was determined using a Weibull function. The EC 25 (for soil Ni concentration) was 1350, 1950, 1880 and > 2400 mg Ni kg -1 soil, for sand, till clay, heavy clay and organic muck, respectively. The EC 25 (for shoot Ni concentration) was 71, 21, 52 and > 35 mg Ni kg -1 shoot DW, for sand, till clay, heavy clay and organic muck, respectively. Total soil Ni concentration, soil pH and soil cation exchange capacity (CEC) accounted for 70% of the variation of Ni accumulation in tissue when the data for all four of the soils were combined; this was similar to the amount of variation accounted for by fitting Ni concentration in tissue to ammonium oxalate extractable soil Ni. Manganese deficiency may have impaired plant growth at higher soil Ni concentrations in the clay soils. Speciation of Ni was similar in all soils studied, and the relationship between Ni concentrations in soil and in tissue was less closely related to chemically extracted soil Ni than it was to a combination of total soil Ni, soil pH and CEC. These are the soil characteristics known to influence both equilibrium among metal species in soil solution, and uptake of cations by plants. Key words: Avena sativa L., EC 25 , Ni, oat
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".