MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010514640 · doi:10.1139/x04-039

Nitrogen dynamics and red pine growth following application of pelletized biosolids in Massachusetts, USA

2004· article· en· W2010514640 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Matthew J. Kelty, Fabián D. Menalled, Maggie M Carlton

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil and Water Nutrient Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiosolidsLeaching (pedology)NutrientLysimeterAnimal sciencePelletsNitrateChemistryMineralization (soil science)NitrogenAgronomyEnvironmental chemistrySoil waterEnvironmental scienceBiologyEcologyEnvironmental engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pelletized biosolids from municipal wastewater treatment were applied to a thinned red pine plantation to determine if there were treatment levels that could produce a fertilization growth response without resulting in unacceptable nitrate leaching. The pellets (total nutrient concentrations of 4.4% N, 1.4% P, 0.2% K) were applied at four levels (0, 200, 400, 800 kg/ha total N). Only 26% of labile organic N in the pellets was mineralized in the first year after application. Foliar N increased with increasing application rate, but other nutrients were unchanged. Red pine basal area growth was unchanged with low and medium levels, but decreased to 50% of control plots with the highest level. A decrease in foliar K/N ratio resulting from high N uptake with little additional K is hypothesized as the cause for the growth decline. The highest treatment level resulted in lysimeter nitrate-N concentrations increasing to 2 mg/L in the first year and 9 mg/L in the second, returning to control levels in the third; no increase occurred in other treatments. These results contrast with those found with liquid sludge applications, in which nearly all N mineralization and the highest nitrate leaching rates occurred in the first year. The slower release of inorganic N from pellets over 2 years may allow higher total N application rates without causing high nitrate leaching.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.104

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicSoil and Water Nutrient DynamicsFrench-language works237,207