Temporal effects of food waste compost on soil physical quality and productivity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reynolds, W. D., Drury, C. F., Tan, C. S. and Yang, X. M. 2015. Temporal effects of food waste compost on soil physical quality and productivity. Can. J. Soil Sci. 95: 251–268. The benefits of compost additions on soil organic carbon content and crop productivity are extant in the literature, but detailed studies of compost effects on soil physical quality (SPQ) are limited. The objective of this study was therefore to describe how one-time additions of compost impact the immediate, mid-term and long-term SPQ and crop yields of an agricultural soil. Food waste compost (FWC) was incorporated once into the top 10 cm of a humid-temperate Brookston clay loam soil at rates of 0 (Control), 75 dry t ha−1 (FWC-75), 150 dry t ha−1 (FWC–150) and 300 dry t ha−1 (FWC-300); measurements of SPQ parameters and corn yield were then made annually over the next 11 yr. The SPQ parameters included bulk density (BD), organic carbon content (OC), air capacity (AC), plant-available water capacity (PAWC), relative field capacity (RFC), and saturated hydraulic conductivity (KS), which were obtained from intact (undisturbed) soil core samples. Prior to compost addition, BD, OC, AC, PAWC, RFC and KS were substantially non-optimal, and BD had increased relative to virgin soil by 46%, while OC, AC and PAWC had decreased relative to virgin soil by 60, 56 and 43%, respectively. Improvements in SPQ 1 yr after compost addition were negligible or small for FWC-75 and FWC-150, but FWC-300 generated optimal values for BD, OC, AC, PAWC and RFC. The SPQ parameters degraded with time, but 11 yr after compost addition, OC and AC under FWC-300 were still within their optimal ranges, as well as significantly (P<0.05) greater than the Control values by 65 and 26%, respectively. Soil cracks and biopores apparently induced substantial annual variation in KS, but average KS nevertheless increased with increasing compost addition rate. Corn grain yield varied substantially among years, which was likely due to weather and compost effects; however, 11-yr cumulative yields from the compost treatments were greater than the Control by 2200–6500 kg ha−1.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".