Ecotoxicology of Copper in Horticultural Soils: A Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nowadays, the world is facing the problem of environmental pollution because of the increase of man’s needs requires development in life activities, progress industrialization, transportation tools, enhancement of agriculture and exploitation of natural resources. Soil and water resources are extremely exposed to pollution from different aspects. Agrochemicals in particular, have created severe problems, since they release thousands of chemicals to the environment. Several studies on the effect of environmental pollutants on agroecosystem have been carried out. On the other hand, the importance of trace elements as environmental pollutants is well known and well documented in literature. Cu contamination to agricultural soils has been accelerated due to its wide and repeated use in agriculture and horticulture as fertilizers or fungicides to protect vines, citrus trees, and other fruit crops against fungus diseases. Applied Cu from different agrochemical sources to agroenvironment may be adsorbed and are transported to the groundwater table and pollute it besides polluting the soils. The use of Cu-based fungicides in vineyard soils is widely documented worldwide. It has been found that many countries contain concentrations in excess of 100 mg kg−1. Importance of study of transport of Cu arises due to the fact that Cu is absorbed in soils and also reaches the groundwater table, thus polluting both soil and ground water. It is often more important to be able to estimate the mobile fraction, the readily soluble fraction, the exchangeable fraction, or the plant available fraction of Cu content of a soil as a more direct indication of the likelihood of deleterious or toxic effects on soils and groundwater. Therefore, the aim of present work was to highlight the behavior and ecotoxicological effects of copper on horticultural soils.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".