Assessment of seafood processing wastes as alternative sources of Selenium in plant production
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In some parts of the world, the soil selenium (Se) content is too low to ensure the Se level recommended for human or animal consumption in the crops produced. In order to secure a desired concentration of Se in crops, Se has been applied as mineral fertilizer to agricultural fields. Since only a minor part of the inorganic Se applied is utilized by plants and small increases in Se concentrations in, e.g., drinking water, may be toxic, the method is somewhat controversial. As an alternative to Se-enriched mineral fertilizer, different seafood-processing wastes have been examined as a source for Se in crop production. Both in greenhouse pot experiments and field trials the Se in seafood waste was not plant-available during the first growing season. There was no significant difference between the Se concentration in wheat growing in soil without added Se and in soil receiving Se from seafood waste in amounts ranging from 0.9 to 9 g ha−1. Neither was any residual effect of Se in seafood waste seen during a second year growth period. Thus, seafood-processing waste cannot be regarded as a potential source of Se in crop production. Possible mobilization of formerly applied Se, as seafood-processing waste or Se enriched mineral fertilizer due to changes in soil redox conditions were examined in a leaching experiment. The mobility of formerly applied Se was generally very low, but the results indicated that under permanently wet soil conditions leaching of Se may occur in plant dormant periods in soils with low organic matter content and high pH.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".