Soil phosphorus fractionation after co-applying biochar and paper mill biosolids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent decades, there has been a growing interest in the recycling of organic materials such as paper mill biosolids (PB) and biochar for use as soil amendments. However, the benefits of co-application of PB and biochar and its effects on soil phosphorus (P) availability remain unknown. An incubation study was conducted on two acidic soils to assess the effect of two PB types (2.5% w/w) co-applied with three rates (0%, 2.5%, and 5% w/w) of pine (Pinus strobus L.) biochar on soil P fractions. An unfertilized control and a mineral NP fertilizer were used as a reference. Soil P fractions were determined by Hedley procedure after 2 and 16 wk of incubation. Material fractionation indicated that the PB containing the highest total P and the lowest Al content had the highest proportion of labile P, whereas most P in the biochar was in a stable form. The incubation study revealed that the P-rich PB increased P availability in both soils to a level comparable to mineral fertilizer at the end of the incubation. The addition of biochar to PB, however, did not affect soil P availability, but the highest rate induced a conversion of P fixed to Al and Fe oxides towards recalcitrant forms, particularly in the sandy loam soil. We conclude that co-applying biochar and PB could be more beneficial than application biochar alone and soils amended with such a mixture would be expected to release part of their P slowly over a longer period of time.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Bench or experimental | high |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Bench or experimental | medium |
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".