Soil Water Retention Curve and Hydraulic Conductivity of Fungi-Treated Sand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Filamentous fungi in soil branch hyphae through pores, creating an interconnected fiber network, which is known as mycelium. Fungal mycelium can cross-link and entangle soil particles, which alters soil pore structures. Fungi can also secret hydrophobic compounds, changing the water wettability of soils. These fungal traits can affect hydraulic properties of soils. This study investigated the effect of fungi on soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity of the Ottawa 50/70 sand treated by a saprotrophic fungus, Trichoderma virens (commonly existing in soil). Soil water retention curve (SWRC) and hydraulic conductivity tests were performed on fungi-treated and untreated Ottawa 50/70 sand. Water repellency of fungi-treated sand was also assessed by measuring contact angles (between water droplet and fungi on sand specimen) and water drop penetration time (WDPT). When compared to the untreated sand, an approximate 6-fold increase in air entry suction (sAEV) and 2-fold reduction in hydraulic conductivity were observed in fungi-treated sand after growing fungi for 10 days. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) imaging was conducted to assess the morphologies of sand matrix treated by fungi.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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, 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".