MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2913369321 · doi:10.1139/cjm-2018-0333

<i>Bacillus subtilis</i> SL-13 biochar formulation promotes pepper plant growth and soil improvement

2019· article· en· W2913369321 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tao Siyuan, Zhansheng Wu, Mengmeng Wei, Xiaochen Liu, Yanhui He, Bang‐Ce Ye

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Microbiology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiocharPepperBacillus subtilisPlant growthSoil fertilityAgronomyAgricultureChemistryEnvironmental scienceBiologyHorticultureSoil waterBacteriaPyrolysisSoil science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of microbial fertilizers can help to avoid the harmful effects of traditional agricultural fertilizers and pesticides; however, there are many constraints on the practical application of such fertilizers. In this study, microbial biochar formulations (MBFs) were obtained by loading biochar, created from agricultural waste, with Bacillus subtilis SL-13. The effects of the MBF on pepper plant growth and soil fertility were studied in pot experiments. The MBF improved the soil texture and environment and favored plant growth. Compared with B. subtilis SL-13-only and biochar-only treatments, the MBF treatments exhibited a significant increase in pepper plant growth and physiological indices and a significant improvement in the physical–chemical properties and activities of several enzymes in the soil. Therefore, the present study demonstrated that MBFs not only retain the beneficial effect of biochar in improving the soil properties but also improve the performance of B. subtilis SL-13 in promoting plant growth.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.167
Teacher spread0.159 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations45
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of MicrobiologySame topicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsFrench-language works237,207