Are compost teas an effective nutrient amendment in the cultivation of strawberries? Soil and plant tissue effects
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract BACKGROUND: Compost teas are purported to serve as an effective source of nutrients; however, there is little scientific evidence to support or refute this claim. Compost tea infusions made with municipal solid waste compost and ruminant compost were used as amendments for strawberry cultivation and their efficacy was compared to municipal solid waste (MSW) compost, ruminant compost, and fertilizer amendments. A variety of parameters were examined including the nutrient, micronutrient and metal concentrations of soil and leaf tissue, pH, total soil carbon and nitrogen, and mineralized nitrogen. RESULTS: Compost tea treatments provided similar amounts of most macro‐ and micronutrients compared to MSW compost, ruminant compost, and fertilizer treatments and subsequently to strawberry plants. The MSW compost added significantly greater amounts of Ca, Na, and S to soil with increased plant uptake while the ruminant compost treatment plots had significantly greater available soil P. The compost and fertilizer treatments also provided greater amounts of K to soil compared to the compost tea treatments. CONCLUSIONS: In a 2 year study, non‐aerated compost teas were effective nutrient amendments for strawberries compared to ruminant and MSW compost, and inorganic fertilizers. Copyright © 2008 Society of Chemical Industry
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it