The effect of biochar from plant materials on agricultural acid sulfate soil: a laboratory incubation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The scarcity of suitable arable land has led to the development of acid sulfate soil for cultivation. The major problems of acid sulfate soil are the inherent low pH and available phosphorus (P) as well as the mobilization of toxic elements such as aluminium (Al) and iron (Fe), rendering the soil unfavourable for crop production. The present work aimed to evaluate the effect of biochar from plant materials on the selected parameters of acid sulfate soil in a laboratory incubation, with unamended control and dolomite treatment soils for comparison. The application of biochar significantly increased (P < 0.05) soil pH by 0.4-0.6 units as well as the soil available P by 13.1 mg kg-1 relative to the control. The soil exchangeable Al was significantly reduced (by 2.4 cmol kg-1 when compared with the control treatment. The dolomite treatment was superior relative to biochar application in increasing soil pH and decreasing Al. The dolomite application, however, was inferior to biochar treatment in increasing soil available P. Moreover, no favourable change was observed in available Fe with the applications of either biochar or lime. These results indicated that biochar has the potential for the amelioration of acid sulfate soil, especially in increasing available P. Further studies should explore the effectiveness of biochar and lime co-application in altering a wider range of soil chemical parameters to inform management options of acid sulfate soil for cultivation.
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 | 0.002 | 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".