MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2405373782 · doi:10.1080/15226514.2016.1186593

Phytoremediation of groundwater contaminated with pesticides using short-rotation willow crops: A case study of an apple orchard

2016· article· en· W2405373782 on OpenAlexaff
Benoît Lafleur, Sébastien Sauvé, Sung Vo Duy, Michel Labrecque

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Phytoremediation · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBioenergy crop production and management
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhytoremediationWillowOrchardEnvironmental sciencePesticideAgronomyContaminationGroundwaterGroundwater pollutionBiologyAquiferBotanyEngineeringEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The occurrence of pesticides in groundwater represents an important health issue, notably for population whose drinking water supply source is located in agricultural areas. However, few solutions have been considered with regard to this issue. We tested the efficacy of a vegetal filtering system made of shrub willows planted at a high density (16,000 plants ha(-1)) to filter or degrade pesticides found in the groundwater flowing out of an apple orchard. Ethylene urea (EU), ethylene thiourea (ETU), tetrahydrophthalimide (THPI), atrazine, and desethylatrazine were monitored in the soil solution in willow and control plots over one growing season. ETU and atrazine concentrations were lower in the willow plots relative to the control plots, whereas desethylatrazine concentration was higher in the willow plots. No significant difference was detected for EU and THPI. Furthermore, pesticide concentrations displayed complex temporal patterns. These results suggest that willow filter systems can filter or degrade pesticides, notably ETU and atrazine, and could be used for phytoremediation purposes. Yet, this potential remains to be quantified with further studies using experimental settings allowing more estimation in time and space.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.498
Threshold uncertainty score0.168

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.240 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of PhytoremediationSame topicBioenergy crop production and managementFrench-language works237,207