Particle Size of Biochar as Co-composted Fertilizer: Influence on Growth Performance of Lettuce and Concentration of Bioavailable Soil Nutrients under Salinity Stress Conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This pot-based study investigated the influence of co-composted wood-derived biochar on lettuce growth performance under salinity and drought stress conditions. Biochar of two particle sizes; > 2 mm and < 1 mm were co-composted with the mixture (1:1 ratio of dry weight) of cow and poultry manures. Co-composted biochars were applied at 5% and 7% rates in soil. Control treatments included the amendment of mixture of biochar with manure in soil. Pots were subjected to slight drought (48-55% water filled pore space (WFPS) of soil) and non-drought conditions (60% WFPS) and under 0 and 1.3 dS m-1 salinity. Results revealed that plants growth performance was significantly better under treatments of co-composted biochar and no salt stress conditions, than when mixture of biochar and manure was applied to soil as non-composted fertilizer. Under no stress condition, small particle-sized co-composted biochar increased root biomass by 786.2% than the large particle-sized co-composted biochar at same application rate. As compared to large-sized co-composted biochar, small sized co-composted biochar at high application rates increased root biomass by 167 – 245% but not leaf biomass under both stress conditions. Small particle-sized co-composted biochar amendment also increased the phosphorus use efficiency (PUE) of lettuce leaves than large particle-sized co-composted biochar under no stress condition. The amendment of small-sized co-composted biochar also increased significantly the concentration of Olsen phosphorus in soil than the amendment of large-particle-sized co-composted biochar. In conclusion, amendment of small particle-sized co-composted biochar has the potential of attenuating salinity and drought stress in lettuce and promoting P cycling in soil.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".