Phytoextraction and Uptake Patterns of Weathered Polychlorinated Biphenyl–Contaminated Soils Using Three Perennial Weed Species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Three promising phytoextracting perennial weed species [ L. (ox-eye daisy), L. (curly dock), and L. (Canada goldenrod)] were planted in monoculture plots at two polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)-contaminated sites in southern Ontario and followed over 2 yr to investigate the effects of plant age, contaminant characteristics, and species-specific properties on PCB uptake and accumulation patterns in plant tissues. Results from this study indicate that, for each of these weed species, shoot contaminant concentrations and total biomass are dependent on plant age and life cycle (vegetative and reproductive stages), which affects the total amount of PCBs phytoextracted on a per-plant basis. Even at suboptimal planting densities of 3 to 5 plants m, all three weed species extracted a greater quantity of PCBs per unit area (4800-10,000 μg m) than the known PCB-accumulator L. ssp (cv Howden pumpkins) (1500-2100 μg m) at one of the two sites. Calculated PCB extractions based on theoretical optimal planting densities were significantly higher at both sites and illustrate the potential of these weeds for site remediation. This study also demonstrates that plants may accumulate PCBs along the stem length in a similar manner as plants.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".