Elution of inorganic and organic phosphorus from surface applied organic amendments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding the effects of organic amendments on the movement of organic and inorganic phosphorus (P) in soils is important for effective P management in agricultural soils. Thus, the effects of beef cattle manure, hog manure and biosolids on the downward movement of organic (Porg) and inorganic (Pi) P in Lakeland and Osborne soils were investigated. The amendments were added to the soils at the rate of 0, 200, 400 and 800 kg P ha-1 by mixing with the top 1 cm of soil in a column. The column was eluted with 20 pore volumes (PV) of 0.01 M CaCl2. The amount of total P (PT), Porg and Pi in the effluent was determined. The concentrations of Porg and Pi in the effluent increased as the rate of amendment application increased. A greater percentage of PT was lost as Pi in the soils amended with hog manure and biosolids, while in the soil amended with beef cattle manure, Porg constituted a greater portion of the total P eluted. As much as 63% of total P eluted from the Lakeland soil at the highest rate of beef cattle manure was in the form of Porg. Lakeland soil retained more Pi than the Osborne soil due to its greater P retention capacity. Organic P was lost within the 2nd and the 4th PV in the two soils, which illustrated the ease of Porg movement through the soil. In conclusion, both organic and inorganic P can move through the soil in organically amended soils and the risk of losing organic P by leaching is greater in soils amended with high rates of beef cattle manure. Key words: Biosolids, hog manure, beef cattle manure, elution, organic phosphorus, inorganic phosphorus
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".