Boron fractionation in some Saskatchewan soils
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Knowledge of B fractions is essential for understanding its chemistry and potential contribution to plant uptake. Four different extraction methodologies to determine readily available B were compared, using a four-step sequential B fractionation procedure, to reveal the nature of soil B in nine selected soils from the Brown and Gray Luvisol zones with different textures and management histories. The four soil extraction techniques were: hot water (HW), 0.01M CaCl2, 1 M NH4-acetate and anion exchange membranes (AEM). The other four fractions, specifically adsorbed, oxide bound, organically bound, and residual B were determined sequentially on the same soil samples. On average, HW extracted more B than 0.01M CaCl2, 1 M NH4-acetate, and AEM. In almost every soil, readily soluble B represented only a small proportion of the total B content, regardless of the extraction method used. Most soil B existed in the residual or occluded form, which accounted for between 92 and 99%, with an average of 97%, of the total soil B. The concentration of organically bound B was higher than that of oxide bound B and specifically adsorbed B, irrespective of the readily soluble B extracting solution used. Cation exchange capacity (CEC) appeared to be an important characteristic to predict the B pools. No significant correlation was found between soil organic carbon content and the different B pools, except for hot water soluble (HWS) B. Correlation coefficients between the B pools and particle size distribution were poor and correlation between carbonates and B pools were insignificant. The findings suggest that in Saskatchewan soils, readily soluble B is only a small proportion of the total B, and the majority of B exists as residual or occluded form. Hot water soluble B appears to be a good method to estimate available B. We found this method rather simple, efficient, and consistent. Key words: Boron fractionation, exchangeable B, extractable B, organically bound B, soluble B
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".