Wetland soil and vegetation bismuth content following experimental deposition of bismuth pellets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bismuth pellets have been approved as a non-toxic alternative to lead pellets in Canada since 1997 but, to our knowledge, there is little literature for soil and vegetation bismuth content in areas of bismuth pellet deposition. The present study addresses this shortcoming by measuring wetland soil and vegetation bismuth content following experimental deposition of bismuth pellets under ambient and experimentally increased acidic deposition conditions. We manipulated 24 plots in a fully factorial design (bismuth shot x soil acidification) in a south-eastern Ontario freshwater wetland during 1999-2003. Soil pH (range 6.5-7.3) increased significantly (p = 0.001) during the experimental period but there were no significant differences amongst treatments (p = 0.79). Significantly (p < 0.05) greater bismuth concentrations were measured in soil receiving bismuth pellets (mean +/- SE, n = 6; with acidification = 2.55 +/- 1.02 microg Bi g(-1) dry mass [DM]; without acidification = 6.40 +/- 2.23 microg Bi g(-1) DM) compared to plots that were not seeded with bismuth pellets (without acidification = 0.42 +/- 0.09 microg Bi g(-1) DM; with acidification = 0.39 +/- 0.10 microg Bi g(-1) DM). Nevertheless, bismuth levels in 20 of 24 aboveground tissue samples from the Carex lacustris-Agrostis scabra community were below detection levels (0.057 microg Bi g(-1) DM); the other samples ranged from 0.065 to 0.095 microg Bi g(-1) DM, similar to global background levels. Primary productivity in plots receiving bismuth pellets and soil acidification was not significantly (p = 0.15) different to vegetation in plots that were not manipulated. The results suggest bismuth mobilization from bismuth pellets into soil but not to aboveground vegetation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".