Sorption of orthophosphate and pyrophosphate in Australian soils
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fluid forms of phosphorus (P) have been found to be much more agronomically efficient than granular forms on calcareous soils. In particular ammonium polyphosphates (APP) have shown significant crop yield benefits. Ammonium polyphosphate fertilisers have a unique chemistry compared to other orthophosphate fertilisers, with up to 60% of the total P in the APP fertiliser being in the form of polyphosphates. The dominant polyphosphate found in APP is pyrophosphate. The sorption characteristics of pyrophosphate as compared to orthophosphate have been studied in the U.S. and Canada where fluid fertilisers are more commonly used. However, this information is not available for Australian soils. To fill this gap, sorption of orthophosphate and pyrophosphate was investigated on several Australian topsoils. Here we report preliminary results suggesting that there is a significant difference between the sorption characteristics of orthophosphate and pyrophosphate in various Australian soils. On the range of soils studied P sorption was greater where P was added as pyrophosphate than when added as orthophosphate. In an alkaline soil type orthophosphate decreased soil solution pH whilst pyrophosphate increased soil solution pH. In an acidic soil type orthophosphate and pyrophosphate both increased soil solution pH.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".