MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2971569609 · doi:10.3846/jeelm.2019.10792

WOOD-DERIVED BIOCHAR INFLUENCES NUTRIENT USE EFFICIENCY OF HEAVY METALS IN SPINACH (SPINACIA OLERACEA) UNDER GROUNDWATER AND WASTEWATER IRRIGATION

2019· article· en· W2971569609 on OpenAlexaff
Sadaf Aslam Ghori, Shamim Gul, Saniya Tahir, Meenah Sohail, Saira Batool, Muhammad Naeem Shahwani, Gul Bano, Mujeeb-ur-Rehman Butt

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Engineering and Landscape Management · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWastewater Treatment and Reuse
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiocharAmendmentWastewaterIrrigationEnvironmental scienceAgronomyBiomass (ecology)RhizosphereNutrientSpinachGroundwaterChemistryEnvironmental engineeringPyrolysisBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Present study analysed the influence of slow-pyrolyzed wood-derived biochar on growth performance and heavy metal accumulation in the leaves of spinach grown under groundwater and wastewater irrigation. Biochar was applied in soil as 5% (~30 t·ha−1) and 10% (~60 t·ha−1) amendment. According to results, plant biomass was significantly higher under wastewater than groundwater irrigation. Biochar amendment increased significantly the aboveground plant biomass and root biomass and promoted water use efficiency (WUE). Under groundwater irrigation, biochar amendment at 10% application rate, increased the leaf area index (P < 0.05), while amendment of biochar at all application rates significantly reduced leaf area index under wastewater irrigation (P < 0.05). Application of biochar also reduced accumulation of rhizosphere soil around roots under wastewater irrigation, indicating less exudate production in the rhizosphere of plants. Biochar significantly reduced the concentration of copper (Cu) in under wastewater irrigation. Biochar increased the nutrient use efficiency (NUE) of plants for zinc (Zn) and Cu under wastewater irrigation.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.657
Threshold uncertainty score0.516

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.177
Teacher spread0.172 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations17
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental Engineering and Landscape ManagementSame topicWastewater Treatment and ReuseFrench-language works237,207