Effects of Sulfuric and Citric Acid for Slurry Acidification on Winter Wheat Yield, N- and S-Balance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Slurry can be acidified to reduce ammonia emissions during slurry application. As considerable quantities of sulfuric acid are required, a lot of S is applied to the soil. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the additional S supply from sulfuric acid has a positive effect on plant growth by comparing sulfuric acid with citric acid. Furthermore, the fate of the S supplied in excess to the plant requirement was investigated. A field experiment was set up with slurry acidified with sulfuric and citric acid. Yield, N and S concentrations of plant and soil samples on three dates during the growing season were measured. At harvest, grain yield was determined, and the harvested crop was analyzed for N and S concentration. After harvest, soil samples were taken on two further dates and soil mineral N (Nmin) and S (Smin) concentrations were measured. At harvest grain yield and N and S uptake by the grain were the same for the sulfuric and citric acid treatments, but the sulfuric acid treatment had significantly higher Smin levels on all dates. After harvest, Smin was then leached via the 30-60 cm layer into the 60-90 cm layer. The very high S supply from the sulfuric acid used to acidify the slurry did not affect the yield nor the N and S uptake of the wheat. S that enters the soil in excess of the plant requirements is transferred with the leachate to deeper soil layers.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".