Assessment of Floristic, Microbial Composition and Growth of Sphenostylis stenocarpa (Hochst Ex A. Rich) in Soil from Two Dumpsites in Benin City, Nigeria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Survey of dumpsite plant composition, assessment of rhizosphere microorganisms and growth performance of Sphenostylis stenocarpa grown on two dumpsite (CAPITOL and NITEL ROAD) soils in Benin City was investigated. Control treatment was top soil. A total of 9 and 30 flora were observed at the CAPITOL and NITEL ROAD dumpsites respectively. Analysis of the rhizosphere soils of the plants grown in dumpsite soils at different amendments showed a total heterotrophic bacterial count ranging from 1.57 x 104 to 4.18 x 104cfu/g and a total heterotrophic fungal count in the various rhizosphere soils ranged from 5.05 x 103 to 1.68 x 104cfu/g. The bacterial isolates from the rhizosphere soil samples were Arthrobacter sp., Bacillus sp, Pseudomonas sp., Escherichia coli, Enterobacter sp., Klebsiella sp., Micrococcus sp. and Staphylococcus sp. The fungal isolates were Aspergillus sp, Mucor sp, Fusarium sp, Penicillium sp, Trichoderma sp. and Saccharomyces sp. Bacillus sp., Pseudomonas sp., Penicillium sp. and Aspergillus sp. Aspergillus sp. 100 % (present in all dumpsite soils analyzed) had the highest frequency of occurrence amongst the isolates.Percentage seedling emergence was significantly reduced from 86.67± 13.33 % - 100.00 ± 0.00 % in control (top) soil to 60.00 ± 0.00 % to 93.33 ± 6.67 % in CAPITOL dumpsite soil. Shoot height at 6 weeks after planting (WAP) was significantly (p < 0.05) increased from 78.33± 18.53 cm in the control soil through 131.50 ± 18.79 cm in the CAPITOL dumpsite soil to 186.33 ± 13.68 cm in NITEL road dumpsite soil, all without amendment. Number of leaves at 6 WAP increased on addition of FYM in both soil types. Chlorophyll content was not significantly different (p > 0.05) from control plants. Leaf area in both dumpsite soils was found to be significantly different (p < 0.05) from the control soil but leaf area increased on addition and increase in amendment in both soil types. In all parameters observed, it was noted that the control treatment did better than the plants grown in the dumpsite soils with increased amendment..
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 | 0.001 | 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".