Ion Exchange Resin Membrane Sensitivity Analysis of Selected Parameters for Soil Nutrient Extraction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>The ion exchange resin method has received considerable attention as an alternative soil test method to evaluate plant available nutrients. This study sought to investigate the effect of changes to the resin standard method in the capacity of the resin to extract soil P, K, Ca, and Mg in soils with different texture. We tested the following modifications: soil grinding levels (&lt; 2 mm; &lt; 0.3 mm), shaking time (8 h; 16 h; 24 h), reciprocation level (12.5 rpm; 25 rpm; 50 rpm), solution and elution saturation concentration (0.25/0.25 mol L<sup>-1</sup>; 0.5/0.5 mol L<sup>-1</sup>; 1.0/1.0 mol L<sup>-1</sup>), soil:solution ratio (1:5 v:v; 1:10 v:v; 1:16 v:v; 1:25 v:v), room temperature (10 <sup>o</sup>C, 15 <sup>o</sup>C, 25 <sup>o</sup>C, 40 <sup>o</sup>C), and resin amount (1 n; 2 n). When one factor was changed all the others were kept the same as the standard procedure. We selected the five most representative soil orders used for crop production in Southern Brazil which have a wide range of clay, organic matter, Mehlich-1 extractable P and K, and KCl exchangeable Ca, and Mg contents. Results showed that modifications on the standard extraction procedure affected the amounts of soil P, K, Ca, and Mg extracted. Temperature was the main factor affecting the amount of P extracted from the soil with ion exchange membrane resin. Our results can be useful to other regions that might be interested in adopting the resin soil test method, allowing others to identify the impacts of similar method modifications on soil nutrient availability according to soil type, soil management, and temperature conditions.</p>
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".