Aluminum phosphate sludge as a phosphorus source for maize production under low soil phosphorus availability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background With increasing food demand as a consequence of the growing world population, there is a corresponding demand for additional sources of phosphorus (P). Alum-phosphate (Al-P) sludge is a by-product of wastewater treatment and can be a good source of P. In this study, the response of maize ( Zea mays L.) to Al-P sludge was tested. Maize was chosen as the test crop due to its prevalent use as human and animal food and as a source of biofuel. The objective of the study was to investigate Al-P sludge as a source of P compared to a commercial fertilizer (monoammonium phosphate, MAP). Methods A growth chamber assay was conducted over four cropping cycles (45 d each). The application rate was 9.7, 19.4, 29.1 and 38.8 mg P kg −1 dry soil. Amendments were applied once at the start of the first cropping cycle. Plants were harvested after each cycle and pots were re-seeded. Dry matter yield (DMY), total P uptake, Al-P uptake, soil total P and Olsen-P concentrations, pH, and EC were measured. Results DMY was significantly greater in pots amended with Al-P sludge than in pots treated with MAP. There was a significant rate × cropping cycle interaction effect on DMY with the differences among rates in cycle 1 different from those in cycle 4. Phosphorus uptake depended on cropping cycle, P source and P application rate. With sludge uptake higher than MAP in all cycles, the highest P uptake was observed at the highest application rate except for cycle 2 where this was observed at the rate of 29.1 mg kg −1 . For MAP, phosphorus recovery efficiency (PRE) at the highest rate was significantly greater than that at the lowest rate whereas PRE in cycle 1 was significantly higher than that in cycle 4. In the first two cycles, aluminum uptake was negligible in both MAP and Al-P sludge treatments; however, in cycles 3 and 4, there was significantly more Al in maize from sludge amended pots. Our results show that Al-P sludge was as effective as MAP in supplying enough P for biomass yield. We, therefore, conclude that Al-P sludge could be an alternative source of P, especially for growing maize as feedstock for bioenergy.
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 | 0.001 | 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".