Alum reduced phosphorus release from flooded soils under cold spring weather conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The effectiveness of amendments such as alum [Al 2 (SO 4 ) 3 ·18H 2 O] in reducing phosphorus (P) loss to floodwater has been reported under summer conditions and laboratory‐controlled environments, but not under actual spring weather conditions in cold climate regions with high diurnal temperature variations when potential for P losses is high. The effectiveness of alum in reducing P release under Manitoba spring weather conditions was evaluated in a 42‐day experiment using 15‐cm soil monoliths from eight agricultural soils, which were unamended or alum‐amended (5 Mg ha −1 ) and flooded to a 10‐cm head. Dissolved reactive P (DRP) concentrations and pH of porewater and floodwater were determined on flooding day and every 7 days after flooding (DAF). Porewater and floodwater DRP concentrations in unamended soils increased 1.4‐ to 4.5‐fold, and 1.8‐ to 15.3‐fold, respectively, from 7 to 42 DAF. In alum‐amended soils, DRP concentrations averaged across soils was 43%–73% (1.0–2.0 mg L −1 ) lower in porewater, and 27%–64% (0.1–1.2 mg L −1 ) lower in floodwater than unamended soils during the flooding period. The reduction of DRP by alum was more pronounced under high fluctuating diurnal spring air temperature than with controlled air temperature (4°C) in a previous similar study. Acidic pH in porewater and floodwater due to alum did not persist over 7 days. This study showed that alum application is a viable option in reducing P released to floodwater in agricultural soils of cold regions where flooding‐induced P loss is prevalent in the spring.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".