Coal Fly Ash as a Soil Conditioner for Field Crops in Southern Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Sixty‐eight percent of the 957 000 Mg of fly ash (FA) from coal‐fired generating stations in Ontario was landfilled in 1998. Current restrictions by government regulators prevent its use for agricultural purposes. Greenhouse and field experiments were therefore initiated to assess the effects of FA on plant growth. The objective of the greenhouse study was to evaluate various rates of FA (0–80 Mg ha −1 equivalent) on soil pH, soil and plant nutrient levels, and plant growth using representative acidic clay and sandy soils from Southern Ontario. After 90 d of soil incubation, the highest rates of FA increased soil pH, but had no significant effect on hot‐water extractable B. Dry weights of plants grown in the same soil types were unaffected by FA rates. In a 3‐yr field study, FA was applied to acidic clay and sandy loam soils at rates ranging from 0 to 50 Mg ha −1 (dry wt. basis). Lime control treatments were also included. In Year 1, corn ( Zea mays L.) plant emergence, grain yield, percent moisture, and harvest index were not significantly influenced by FA applications. However, soybean [ Glycine max (L.) Merr.] yields treated with 50 Mg ha −1 FA increased by as much as 35 and 31% in comparison with untreated and lime control treatments, respectively. Selenium and boron, while presently the rate‐limiting elements for maximum permissible loading rates of FA for soil amendments in the province, did not accumulate in plants in quantities that would be of concern for plant health or animal and human consumption.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.034 | 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".