Effects of the planting environment of lawn brick with fly-ash medium on the growth of turfgrass
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As our environmental awareness strengthened and living standard improved, demand for green parking lots and lawn roadside is enhancing. But the increasing acrea ge of buildings, dams and roads conflicts with the development of lawn in modern cities. In order to settle this contradiction, making full use of lawn bricks b ecomes necessary. Based on the fact that the optimal ratio of fly ash and soil a s lawn medium has been found, this experiment probes into the fertilizing and bi ological effects of lawn bricks with mixed medium of soil and fly ash in their h oles. In order to analyze the brick hole environment, the experiment also desig ns two kinds of contrastive planting environment, one is soil hole environment, the other is mixed environment of soil and fly ash. The soil hole environment has the same holes as lawn bricks, and is infilled by mixed medium of soil and f ly ash. On the surface of the mixed environment of soil and fly ash, four circle s having the same size as the holes in lawn bricks have been lined out. The pot experiment was conducted in March 11 of 2002, which was composed of 3 tr eatments including brick hole environment, soil hole environment and the mixed environment of soil and fly ash. Perennial ryegrass(Lolium multiflorum L. cv, Barmultra) were planted in the holes and circles of different planting env ironment. Each treatment was replicated twenty forth times. The experiment was carried out in the green house, and its purpose was to study and appraise water holding capacity and nutrient supplying capability of the three kinds of plan ting environment, also to investigate their influences on the growth and quality of turfgrass. The results show that, turfgrass tissue under brick hole environment has higher contents of nutrient elements. Its contents of N, K, Na, Cu, Zn are respectivel y 0 073, 0 5517, 0 5263, 4 1287, 1 4044 times higher than those under soil hole environment, and 0 103, 0 3513, 0 5037, 1 695, 0 911 times higher th an those under the mixed environment. Their differences are obvious (P0 05 ). According to the above results, the brick hole environment can benefit plant s greatly. Furthermore, the contents of Fe, Cu and Zn in turfgrass tissue under brick hole environment are far higher than the fitting needs, so it unnecessary to supply iron, copper and zinc fertilizer as usual. It also proves that the br ick hole environment has lowest evaporation rate and highest medium water conte nt. So it has long time water holding capacity to effectively lift the menace of high temperature on turfgrass. In a word, the brick hole environment helps t urf especially the cold season turf go over summertime easily. During the whole growing seasons, the clipping yield of turfgrass under soil hole environment i s higher than that under brick hole environment, but the difference isn't notab le (P 0 05). The clipping yield of turfgrass under mixed environment is lo west. After summertime, the qualities of turfgrass under different planting envi ronment are evaluated. The turf quality under brick hole environment is the bes t and its synthesized score is 3 708, the turf quality under soil hole environ ment, 2 637 scores, the turf quality under the mixed environment, only 2 318 s cores. The diversity of turf grass between the forth and the two later is notabl e (P0 01). Lawn bricks with fly ash medium in their holes used as an environment for lawn growth, can not only increase the acreage of lawn, but also solve the fly ash ou tlet problem.
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".