Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T14:42:32.170Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Changes in soil hydraulic properties due to organic amendment

Subject: Earth and Environmental Science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2022

Haimanote K. Bayabil*
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, Tropical Research and Education Center, University of Florida, Homestead, Florida, USA
Fitsum T. Teshome
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, Tropical Research and Education Center, University of Florida, Homestead, Florida, USA
Niguss Solomon Hailegnaw
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, Tropical Research and Education Center, University of Florida, Homestead, Florida, USA
Jian Zhang
Affiliation:
College of Resource and Environmental Engineering, Guizhou University, Guiyang, China
Yuncong C. Li
Affiliation:
Department of Soil, Water, and Ecosystem Sciences, Tropical Research and Education Center, University of Florida, Homestead, Florida, USA
*
*Corresponding author. Email: hbayabil@ufl.edu

Abstract

The effect of milorganite, a commercially available organic soil amendment, on soil nutrients, plant growth, and yield has been investigated. However, its effect on soil hydraulic properties remains less understood. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the effect of milorganite amendment on soil evaporation, moisture retention, hydraulic conductivity, and electrical conductivity of a Krome soil. A column experiment was conducted with two milorganite application rates (15 and 30% v/v) and a non-amended control soil. The results revealed that milorganite reduced evaporation rates and the length of Stage I of the evaporation process compared with the control. Moreover, milorganite increased moisture retention at saturation and permanent wilting point while decreasing soil hydraulic conductivity. In addition, milorganite increased soil electrical conductivity. Overall, milorganite resulted in increased soil moisture retention; however, moisture in the soil may not be readily available for plants due to increased soil salinity.

Type
Research Article
Information
Result type: Novel result, Negative result
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Introduction

Allen et al. (Reference Allen, Pereira, Raes and Smith1998) observed that soil surface evaporation is a function of the mean water content in the topsoil (10–15 cm). However, several studies have reported that the evaporation process is characterized by multiple stages (Figure 1). The first stage (Stage I) is when the evaporation rate is constantly followed by a second stage (Stage II) characterized by a decreasing rate of evaporation (Metzger & Tsotsas, Reference Metzger and Tsotsas2005). As surface soil continues to dry, during Stage I, water from the deeper soil is supplied to the surface soil by capillary flow to maintain a constant evaporation rate (Lehmann et al., Reference Lehmann, Merlin, Gentine and Or2018; Shokri & Or, Reference Shokri and Or2011). As the soil becomes drier, capillary pathways will be disrupted and the evaporation rate drops significantly at Stage II (Shokri et al., Reference Shokri, Lehmann and Or2008). An investigation by An et al. (Reference An, Tang, Xu, Gong, Shi and Inyang2018) revealed that during Stage I, soil-water content decreased continuously with time; however, the ratio of actual to potential evaporation (AE/PE) remained stable. Subsequently, during Stage II, AE/PE decreased significantly. Reports showed that the evaporation rate during Stage II is driven by vapor diffusion across the dry soil profile, which increases at a rate inversely proportional to the square root of time (Brutsaert, Reference Brutsaert2014; Or et al., Reference Or, Lehmann, Shahraeeni and Shokri2013).

Figure 1. Schematic of the evaporation stages of a drying soil (adapted from Lehmann et al., Reference Lehmann, Assouline and Or2008).

Several studies have reported that biosolids and organic amendments enhance soil hydraulic properties, which in turn have positive impacts on soil and water relations including water retention and infiltration (Babalola et al., Reference Babalola, Adesodun, Olasantan and Adekunle2012; Bayabil et al., Reference Bayabil, Stoof, Lehmann, Yitaferu and Steenhuis2015; Brye et al., Reference Brye, Slaton, Norman and Savin2005; Mohamed Am et al., Reference Mohamed Am, Sekar and Muthukrish2010; Page-Dumroese et al., Reference Page-Dumroese, Ott, Strawn and Tirocke2018; Rahman et al., Reference Rahman, Dahab and Mustafa1996). However, there is no clear understanding of whether increased moisture retention due to organic amendments would lead to increased evaporation losses. It is expected that as more moisture is available within the topsoil due to organic amendment, the evaporation rate could potentially increase compared to non-amended control soils. A 75 g/kg rice barn or fish meal application to saline soils also reduced evaporation by 8–20% (Chang et al., Reference Chang, Ye, Shao, Zhang and Zhang2016). Adeyemo et al. (Reference Adeyemo, Akingbola and Ojeniyi2019) observed that the incorporation of 10 Mg/ha of poultry manure led to a reduction in cumulative infiltration rates for sandy soils. Milorganite is a commercially available product produced from sewage sludge treatment plants and is used as a soil amendment (Kebrom et al., Reference Kebrom, Woldesenbet, Bayabil, Garcia, Gao, Ampim, Awal and Fares2019; Staufenbeil, Reference Staufenbeil2019). Milorganite could potentially serve as a slow-release fertilizer as it contains more than 6% nitrogen and 4% phosphorous by mass. For example, the application of milorganite increased the content of soil inorganic nitrogen and maintained soil microbial biomass (Wang et al., Reference Wang, Felice and Scow2020). Hence, the objective of this study was to investigate the poorly studied effects of milorganite on soil moisture characteristics, hydraulic conductivity, and evaporation rates. The study hypothesis was that the addition of milorganite to the soil will affect the moisture characteristics, hydraulic conductivity, and evaporation rates of the soil.

Materials and methods

Soil and milorganite

Krome soil was collected from research fields at the Tropical Research and Education Center in Homestead, Florida, USA. Then the soil was sieved using a 2-mm sieve to remove coarse materials. The selected properties of both soil and milorganite are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Selected properties of milorganite and Krome soil used in the study

Experimental design

The experiment was designed with three treatments in three replicates: control (no milorganite), 15% v/v milorganite, and 30% v/v milorganite. The study was conducted in a greenhouse using PVC columns (10-cm diameter and 1,178-cm3 volume). The 2-mm sieved soil was mixed uniformly with two rates of milorganite (15 and 30% v/v) and packed into the soil column at an average bulk density of 1.1 g/cm3. Water was slowly added to soil columns until the soil become fully saturated. In addition, columns filled with water only were used to measure potential evaporation rates from the free water surface. The experiment was replicated three times and continued until daily evaporation rates from soil columns were relatively negligible.

Data collection

Daily evaporation rates were recorded by measuring weight losses using a digital scale. Electrical conductivity measurements were conducted, after extraction of samples with demineralized water (w/v = 1:5), using HANNA Benchtop probe (HI5522-01; Hanna Instruments Inc., Smithfield, VA, USA). The swelling property of milorganite was calculated after full saturation of samples for 24 h and subsequently allowing free draining of gravitational water until the field capacity was reached. After drainage stops, the difference between the initial volume and the volume at the field capacity was regarded as the swelling capacity of milorganite.

Soil moisture characteristics and hydraulic conductivity

Soil hydraulic properties were measured using the HYPROP and WP4C equipment (METER Group, Inc., Pullman, WA, USA). Air-dried soil samples were uniformly packed in stainless-steel cylinders. After packing, any excess soil at the top was carefully removed with a saw blade and the top was left open. Sample preparation and processing were done following a similar approach by Lipovetsky et al. (Reference Lipovetsky, Zhuang, Teixeira, Boyd, May Pontedeiro, Moriconi, Alves, Couto and van Genuchten2020). Finally, the Hyprop-FIT software was used to develop soil moisture characteristics and hydraulic conductivity curves (Pertassek et al., Reference Pertassek, Peters and Durner2015).

Statistical analysis

The R statistical programming software was used for data analysis, and analysis of variance tests were performed using the Kruskal–Wallis rank-sum test. The significant effect of milorganite application rate was tested at a 5% significance level (p < .05).

Results and discussion

Evaporation rates

Daily evaporation rates from all soil columns followed a similar trend to the potential evaporation (ETo) rate from a free water surface at the beginning of the experiment (Figure 2a). However, evaporation rates from soils amended with milorganite sharply dropped after a week. There was an approximately 2–3-day lag in evaporation decline between the 15 and 30% milorganite treatments. On the other hand, evaporation rates from the control soil followed the rate from free water surfaces for a longer time. Comparing the ratios of soil evaporation with potential evaporation, as shown in Figure 2b, milorganite treatment reduced the length of Stage-I evaporation by more than half, leading to an extended period for Stage-II evaporation compared with non-amended control soils.

Figure 2. Daily evaporation rates from soils with and without milorganite and free water surface (a) and relative evaporation rates from soils compared with potential evaporation from a free water surface (b). The gray-shaded bars represent changes of evaporation from Stage I to Stage II for soils with milorganite and non-amended control soils.

At the end of the experiment, milorganite amended soils retained about half of the water that was initially added compared to the non-amended control soil (Figure 3). There was a 10% difference in final moisture retained between the two milorganite rates (15 and 30%). Wang et al. (Reference Wang, Felice and Scow2020) and Avery et al. (Reference Avery, Krzic, Wallace, Newman, Smukler and Bradfield2018) reported similar findings that milorganite increased soil-water retention. The reduction in the level of water in columns filled with water was linear, reaching near zero at the end of the experiment. It was apparent from this study that milorganite reduced evaporation rates while increasing moisture retention for extended periods, which suggests that milorganite could be used as a water conservation strategy in addition to being a source of nitrogen and phosphorous to plants.

Figure 3. Percentage of water retention of soils with and without milorganite, and water columns. Treatment values are averages of three replications.

Soil moisture characteristics and hydraulic conductivity

Soil moisture characteristic curves of soils amended with milorganite showed a shift with higher moisture retention both near saturation and in the dry regions (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Soil moisture characteristic curves (a) and hydraulic conductivity (b) from control and milorganite treated soils. Note: hydraulic conductivity readings of 15 and 30% milorganite treatments were multiplied by 200 to achieve the same scale as the control for plotting.

In most cases, milorganite amended soils had higher moisture content at a given pressure level. This could be due to increased absorption and retention of water by milorganite particles (Figure 4a). Results showed that the high moisture retention capacity of milorganite is associated with its high swelling capacity (Figure 5). The volume of a dry milorganite has increased by 54% at the field capacity, indicating the capacity of milorganite to absorb and retain water very well. A sharp decline in the moisture release curve was observed for the control soil. On the other hand, the soil hydraulic conductivity of milorganite amended soils was reduced by a factor of 200 compared with the control (Figure 4b). Hydraulic conductivity from 30% milorganite treatment showed a sharp decline with a small increase in pressure. This suggests that the swelling property of milorganite leads to the disruption of pore connectivity of soils, which limits the transportation of moisture from subsurface soil to surface soil, hence reducing the evaporation and hydraulic conductivity of soils.

Figure 5. Swelling capacity of milorganite with the addition of water.

Electrical conductivity

The finding from this study demonstrated a significant increment of electrical conductivity of soil after the addition of both 15 and 30% of milorganite (Figure 6). The electrical conductivity of 30% milorganite addition was also significantly more than that of 15% milorganite treatment. The increment of soil electrical conductivity after the addition of the milorganite is clearly due to the much higher salt content of milorganite compared to the soil used in this study (Table 1). Studies show that salt accumulation in soil negatively affects plants by making soil water less available for plant use regardless of soil moisture status. At high salt levels, the osmotic potential of soil water increases (Sheldon et al., Reference Sheldon, Dalal, Kirchhof, Kopittke and Menzies2017). The increase in the electrical conductivity could put much pressure on plants. This is in agreement with the finding of Romero-Aranda et al. (Reference Romero-Aranda, Soria and Cuartero2001), where it is reported that tomato yield and water uptake were reduced due to the increment in the salinity of the soil.

Figure 6. Effect of Milorganite on the electrical conductivity of the soil.

Conclusion

A study was conducted to investigate changes in evaporation and soil moisture characteristics of Krome soil with two rates of milorganite amendment. Milorganite amended soils had reduced evaporation rates compared with the control. Milorganite amendment reduced the length of Stage-I evaporation process, leading to an extended Stage-II evaporation period. This resulted in increased moisture retention and decreased hydraulic conductivity rates. The reduction of evaporation rates and hydraulic conductivity also suggests that milorganite incorporation leads to the disruption of the pore networks that are needed to transport water from subsurface depths. However, the effects of milorganite on salinity suggest that the increased moisture retention is less likely to be available for plant use as plants will have difficulty extracting water from soil with elevated salt levels. Therefore, the findings from our study suggest that irrigation management of milorganite amended soils should be optimized to avoid salt and water stress of plants grown on milorganite amended soil.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Christian Bartell, Syed Shaham Madni, and Gui Qin Yu for their assistance with field soil collection and sample processing and for their assistance in acquiring the necessary materials for the experiment.

Open peer review

To view the open peer review materials for this article, please visit http://doi.org/10.1017/exp.2022.25.

Data availability statement

The data used in this study are available upon request to the corresponding author.

Authorship contributions

H.K.B. conceived and designed the experiment. F.T.T., J.Z., and N.S.H. implemented the experiment and collected data. H.K.B. led the writing of the article with contributions from all the authors.

Funding statement

This publication is based on work that is supported by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture, under the Award No. 2020-67019-31163 and the Hatch Project No. FLA-TRC-005751. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

References

Adeyemo, A. J., Akingbola, O. O., & Ojeniyi, S. O. (2019). Effects of poultry manure on soil infiltration, organic matter contents and maize performance on two contrasting degraded alfisols in southwestern Nigeria. International Journal of Recycling of Organic Waste in Agriculture, 8, 7378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40093-019-0273-7Google Scholar
Allen, R. G., Pereira, L. S., Raes, D., Smith, M. (1998). Crop evapotranspiration—Guidelines for computing crop water requirements. FAO irrigation and drainage paper 56. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (p. 15).Google Scholar
An, N., Tang, C.-S., Xu, S.-K., Gong, X.-P., Shi, B., & Inyang, H. I. (2018). Effects of soil characteristics on moisture evaporation. Engineering Geology, 239, 126135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2018.03.028Google Scholar
Avery, E., Krzic, M., Wallace, B., Newman, R. F., Smukler, S. M., & Bradfield, G. E. (2018). One-time application of biosolids to ungrazed semiarid rangelands: 14 yr soil responses. Canadian Journal of Soil Science, 98, 696708. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjss-2018-0102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Babalola, O. A., Adesodun, J. K., Olasantan, F. O., & Adekunle, A. F. (2012). Responses of some soil biological, chemical and physical properties to short-term compost amendment. International Journal of Soil Science, 7, 2838. https://doi.org/10.3923/ijss.2012.28.38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bayabil, H. K., Stoof, C. R., Lehmann, J. C., Yitaferu, B., & Steenhuis, T. S. (2015). Assessing the potential of biochar and charcoal to improve soil hydraulic properties in the humid Ethiopian Highlands: The Anjeni watershed. Geoderma, 243–244, 115123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2014.12.015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brutsaert, W. (2014). Daily evaporation from drying soil: Universal parameterization with similarity. Water Resources Research, 50, 32063215. https://doi.org/10.1002/2013WR014872Google Scholar
Brye, K. R., Slaton, N. A., Norman, R. J., & Savin, M. C. (2005). Short-term effects of poultry litter form and rate on soil bulk density and water content. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 35, 23112325. https://doi.org/10.1081/LCSS-200030655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, T., Ye, H., Shao, X., Zhang, Z., Zhang, J., 2016. Effects of organic fertilizer on evaporation under different saline soils. In 2016 ASABE International Meeting. American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers. https://doi.org/10.13031/aim.20162461505Google Scholar
Kebrom, T. H., Woldesenbet, S., Bayabil, H. K., Garcia, M., Gao, M., Ampim, P., Awal, R., & Fares, A. (2019). Evaluation of phytotoxicity of three organic amendments to collard greens using the seed germination bioassay. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26, 54545462. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-3928-4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lehmann, P., Assouline, S., & Or, D., 2008. Characteristic lengths affecting evaporative drying of porous media. Physical Review E 77. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.77.056309Google ScholarPubMed
Lehmann, P., Merlin, O., Gentine, P., & Or, D., 2018. Soil texture effects on surface resistance to bare-soil evaporation. Geophysical Research Letters, 45, 1039810405. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL078803Google Scholar
Lipovetsky, T., Zhuang, L., Teixeira, W. G., Boyd, A., May Pontedeiro, E., Moriconi, L., Alves, J. L. D., Couto, P., & van Genuchten, M. T. (2020). HYPROP measurements of the unsaturated hydraulic properties of a carbonate rock sample. Journal of Hydrology, 591, 125706. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.125706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Metzger, T., & Tsotsas, E. (2005). Influence of pore size distribution on drying kinetics: A simple capillary model. Drying Technology, 23, 17971809. https://doi.org/10.1080/07373930500209830CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohamed Am, M., Sekar, S., & Muthukrish, P. (2010). Prospects and potential of poultry manure. Asian Journal of Plant Sciences, 9, 172182. https://doi.org/10.3923/ajps.2010.172.182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Or, D., Lehmann, P., Shahraeeni, E., & Shokri, N. (2013). Advances in soil evaporation physics—A review. Vadose Zone Journal, 12, 116. https://doi.org/10.2136/vzj2012.0163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page-Dumroese, D. S., Ott, M. R., Strawn, D. G., & Tirocke, J. M. (2018). Using organic amendments to restore soil physical and chemical properties of a mine site in northeastern Oregon, USA. Applied Engineering in Agriculture, 34, 4355. https://doi.org/10.13031/aea.12399Google Scholar
Pertassek, T., Peters, A., & Durner, W. (2015). HYPROP-FIT software user’s manual, V.3.0 (p. 66). UMS GmbH.Google Scholar
Rahman, H. A. A., Dahab, M. H., & Mustafa, M. A. (1996). Impact of soil amendments on intermittent evaporation, moisture distribution and salt redistribution in saline-sodic clay soil columns. Soil Science, 161, 793802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romero-Aranda, R., Soria, T., & Cuartero, J. (2001). Tomato plant-water uptake and plant-water relationships under saline growth conditions. Plant Science, 160, 265272. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-9452(00)00388-5Google ScholarPubMed
Sheldon, A. R., Dalal, R. C., Kirchhof, G., Kopittke, P. M., & Menzies, N. W. (2017). The effect of salinity on plant-available water. Plant and Soil, 418, 477491. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-017-3309-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shokri, N., Lehmann, P., & Or, D. (2008). Effects of hydrophobic layers on evaporation from porous media. Geophysical Research Letters, 35, L19407. https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GL035230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shokri, N., & Or, D. (2011). What determines drying rates at the onset of diffusion controlled stage-2 evaporation from porous media? Drying rate at the onset of stage-2 evaporation. Water Resources Research, 47. https://doi.org/10.1029/2010WR010284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Staufenbeil, J. (2019). What is in a bag of milorganite? | Milorganite [WWW document]. https://www.milorganite.com/blog/milorganite/what-milorganiteGoogle Scholar
Wang, D., Felice, M. L., & Scow, K. M. (2020). Impacts and interactions of biochar and biosolids on agricultural soil microbial communities during dry and wet-dry cycles. Applied Soil Ecology, 152, 103570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2020.103570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1. Schematic of the evaporation stages of a drying soil (adapted from Lehmann et al., 2008).

Figure 1

Table 1. Selected properties of milorganite and Krome soil used in the study

Figure 2

Figure 2. Daily evaporation rates from soils with and without milorganite and free water surface (a) and relative evaporation rates from soils compared with potential evaporation from a free water surface (b). The gray-shaded bars represent changes of evaporation from Stage I to Stage II for soils with milorganite and non-amended control soils.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Percentage of water retention of soils with and without milorganite, and water columns. Treatment values are averages of three replications.

Figure 4

Figure 4. Soil moisture characteristic curves (a) and hydraulic conductivity (b) from control and milorganite treated soils. Note: hydraulic conductivity readings of 15 and 30% milorganite treatments were multiplied by 200 to achieve the same scale as the control for plotting.

Figure 5

Figure 5. Swelling capacity of milorganite with the addition of water.

Figure 6

Figure 6. Effect of Milorganite on the electrical conductivity of the soil.

Reviewing editor:  Bartosz Adamczyk Natural Resources Institute Finland, Viikki, Helsinki, Finland, 00790
Minor revisions requested.

Review 1: Changes in Soil Hydrological Properties Due to Organic Amendment

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

Comments to the Author: This paper is well revised following my suggestions, so it is acceptable to be published now。

Presentation

Overall score 4.6 out of 5
Is the article written in clear and proper English? (30%)
5 out of 5
Is the data presented in the most useful manner? (40%)
4 out of 5
Does the paper cite relevant and related articles appropriately? (30%)
5 out of 5

Context

Overall score 4.8 out of 5
Does the title suitably represent the article? (25%)
5 out of 5
Does the abstract correctly embody the content of the article? (25%)
4 out of 5
Does the introduction give appropriate context? (25%)
5 out of 5
Is the objective of the experiment clearly defined? (25%)
5 out of 5

Analysis

Overall score 4.6 out of 5
Does the discussion adequately interpret the results presented? (40%)
4 out of 5
Is the conclusion consistent with the results and discussion? (40%)
5 out of 5
Are the limitations of the experiment as well as the contributions of the experiment clearly outlined? (20%)
5 out of 5

Review 2: Changes in Soil Hydrological Properties Due to Organic Amendment

Conflict of interest statement

I confirm that I have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Comments

Comments to the Author: The authors investigated the response of soil hydraulic properties to different amendment levels. However, there are many shortcomings in the work. The authors are encouraged to invest more time in revising the article and submitting it again.

1. The title. It’s better to use hydraulic properties.

2. The abstract is poorly written. Rewrite to avoid repeating the same phrases many times and to correct the mistakes.

Line 20 “four replicates,” while "three replicates" in lines 84 and 139.

Line 21: Do the treatments also affect evaporation from the free water surface?! Rephrases needed.

3. The methodology. A lot of information was missed.

Line 81: Verify the EC number and unit by comparing it to fig. 6.

The authors didn’t present the soil bulk densities for their packed treatments, which significantly influenced their results due to different initial volumetric water content. This is particularly important with the high swelling capacity of the used material. This applies to the evaporation and the HYPROP experiments.

4. The results. Line 144, fig 4 a. These are the fitted curves. You have to present the observed data for the HYPROP. Moreover, the curves have been extended beyond the measurement range of the HYPROP. I assumed they used the WP4C device to extend the curves, but they didn’t mention that in the methodologies, and if they did, they should correct the measurement to subtract the osmotic pressure from the WP4C measurement, particularly with saline materials. Explain everything in the methodology and the results.

Line 145 saturated??.

Presentation

Overall score 3.3 out of 5
Is the article written in clear and proper English? (30%)
4 out of 5
Is the data presented in the most useful manner? (40%)
3 out of 5
Does the paper cite relevant and related articles appropriately? (30%)
3 out of 5

Context

Overall score 3.5 out of 5
Does the title suitably represent the article? (25%)
4 out of 5
Does the abstract correctly embody the content of the article? (25%)
3 out of 5
Does the introduction give appropriate context? (25%)
3 out of 5
Is the objective of the experiment clearly defined? (25%)
4 out of 5

Analysis

Overall score 2.8 out of 5
Does the discussion adequately interpret the results presented? (40%)
3 out of 5
Is the conclusion consistent with the results and discussion? (40%)
3 out of 5
Are the limitations of the experiment as well as the contributions of the experiment clearly outlined? (20%)
2 out of 5