Treatment of Landfill Leachate by Short-Rotation Willow Coppice Plantations in a Large-Scale Experiment in Eastern Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The treatment of leachate by vegetative filters composed of short-rotation willow coppice (SRWC) has been shown to be a cost-effective alternative to conventional and costly methods. However, few studies have considered the treatment capability of willow filters at a scale large enough to meet the industrial requirements of private landfill owners in North America. We report here on a field trial (0.5 ha) in which a willow plantation was irrigated with groundwater (D0) or aged leachate at two different loadings (D1 and D2, which was twice that of D1). Additionally, half of the D2-irrigated plots were amended with phosphorus (D2P). The system, which operated for 131 days, was highly efficient, causing the chemical oxygen demand concentration to drop significantly with the total removal of ammonia (seasonal average removal by a concentration of 99-100%). D2P efficacy was higher than that of D2, indicating that P increased the performance of the system. It also increased the willow biomass 2.5-fold compared to water irrigation. Leaf tissue analysis revealed significant differences in the concentrations of total nitrogen, boron, and zinc, according to the treatment applied, suggesting that the absorption capacity of willows was modified with leachate irrigation. These results indicate that the willow plantation can be effective for the treatment of landfill leachate in respect of environmental requirements.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".