Papermill Biosolids Effect on Soil Physical and Chemical Properties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Papermill biosolids (PB) can provide multiple benefits to the soil system. The purpose of this study was to quantify the effects of a high C/N ratio (C/N = 100) de-inked PB on soil physical and chemical properties, including soil bulk density, infiltration rates, wet aggregate stability, total soil carbon, and heavy metal concentrations. Four rates of PB (0, 50, 100, and 150 Mg ha(-1)) were applied annually, for up to 3 yr, on four agricultural soils in Ontario, Canada. Decreases in soil bulk density between 0.27 and 0.35 g cm(-3), relative to the nonamended treatment, were observed in soils receiving PB treatments over 3 yr. Total soil carbon increased within 1 yr on PB-amended soils planted to soybeans but not on soils planted to corn. Hydraulic conductivities (K fs) were greater in all soils receiving PB amendments relative to the nonamended treatment throughout the study. Other properties measured, such as pH and electrical conductivity, were relatively unchanged after 2 yr of PB applications. While some increases in heavy metal accumulation occurred, there were no clear trends observed at any of the sites related to PB rates. The results of this study provide support to the idea that annual applications of PB can add significantly to the stability of soil structure.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".