Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39223290›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Assessment of portable X-ray fluorescence (pXRF) for plant-available nutrient prediction in biochar-amended soils.

Joao Antonangelo, Hailin Zhang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Joao AntonangeloDepartment of Crop and Soil Sciences, Washington State University, Pullman, WA, USA. joao.antonangelo@wsu.edu.
Hailin ZhangPlant and Soil Sciences Department, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Portable X-ray Fluorescence probe (pXRF) is a tool used to measure many elements quickly and efficiently in soil with minimal sample preparation. Although this sensing technique has been widely used to determine total elemental concentrations, it has not been calibrated for plant-available nutrient predictions. We evaluated the potential of using pXRF for fast plant-available nutrient quantification. Two experiments were conducted in soils treated with two types of biochars to obtain a practical range of soil pH (5.5 - 8.0) and organic carbon (2.0 - 5.5%). Biochars applied were derived from switchgrass (SGB) and poultry litter (PLB). The first experiment received biochars at application rates up to 8% (w/w) and had no plants. The second experiment had up to 4% of SGB or PLB planted with ryegrass (Lolium perenne). Linear regression (LR), polynomial regression (PolR), power regression (PowR), and stepwise multiple linear regression (SMLR) were the models tested. Regardless of the extraction method, phosphorus (P) showed a strong relationship between pXRF and several laboratory extraction methods; however, K prediction via pXRF was sensitive to the plant factor. The optimum soil available-P corresponding to the maximum P uptake in plant tissues can be assessed with pXRF. The LR was inconsistent for calcium (Ca), sulfur (S), and copper (Cu) and non-significant for magnesium (Mg), iron (Fe), and zinc (Zn). Our results showed that pXRF is applicable to estimate P availability in soils receiving organic amendments. More evaluations are needed with diverse soil types to confirm the findings before using pXRF for fertilizer recommendation.

Indexed as

CharcoalSoilSpectrometry, X-Ray EmissionLoliumNutrientsPhosphorusPlantsbiocharCharcoalNutrientsPhosphorusSoilBiocharPortable x-ray fluorescenceSoil nutrients extractionTraditional methodsWet chemistry

Identifiers

PMID39223290
PMCPMC11369259

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.