Subsurface Irrigation as a Microbial Delivery Tool for Bioaugmentation: Transport, Distribution and Survival in Large Packed Soil Columns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditionally, soil surface inoculation and surface irrigation are used for delivery, transport and distribution of bacteria for agricultural and in-situ environmental decontamination applications. The objective of this study was to test whether subsurface irrigation with a water table management (WTM) system, successfully used previously for nutrient delivery, could also be used to deliver bacteria to soil depths. Twelve stainless steel columns, 1000 mm in length and 200 mm in diameter, were packed with a sandy loam soil. Four experimental treatments, two subsurface irrigation and two surface irrigation, were randomly allocated, in triplicate, to the twelve columns. The transport, implantation and survival of Sinorhizobium (Rhizobium) meliloti, strain A-025, in these columns were monitored at different depths and times after surface and subsurface irrigation. Even though the transport of bacterial cells was slower with the subsurface irrigation regime than with surface irrigation, more bacteria were implanted at different depths with subsurface irrigation. The numbers of bacterial cells distributed with subsurface irrigation were 1.6x10(5), 1.3x10(5), 2.6x10(5) and 2.9x10(5) cfu (colony forming units) x g(-1) of soil at 60, 300, 500 and 700 mm depths, respectively, whereas with surface irrigation the numbers were 2.0x10(4), 3.0x10(4), 1.9x10(5), 9.0x10(2) cfu x g(-1) of soil. These results dearly indicate that subirrigation can be used effectively to bioaugment a sandy loam soil matrix.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".