The role of organic amendments in soil reclamation: A review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Larney, F. J. and Angers, D. A. 2012. The role of organic amendments in soil reclamation: A review. Can. J. Soil Sci. 92: 19–38. A basic tenet of sustainable soil management is that current human activities are not detrimental to future generations. Soils are degraded by natural events (erosion) or industrial activity. A prevalent feature of degraded or disturbed soils is lack of organic matter compared with adjacent undisturbed areas. Organic amendments, such as livestock manure, biosolids, pulp and paper mill by-products, wood residuals and crop residues, are produced in abundance in Canada and could be widely used in soil reclamation. Biosolids production is ∼0.5 Tg yr −1 (dry wt.); paper mill sludge generated in the province of Quebec was ∼2 Tg (wet wt.) in 2002. This review paper examines mechanisms through which organic amendments affect soil properties (physical, chemical, biological) and describes the role of organic amendments in reclamation, with emphasis on amendment types and application rates for soil amelioration and biomass production. Single large applications of organic amendments can accelerate initial reclamation and lead to self-sustaining net primary productivity. Readily decomposable organic amendments may provide immediate, but transient, effects, whereas stable, less decomposable materials may provide longer-lasting effects. Using organic amendments for reclamation is mutually beneficial wherein waste products from agriculture, forestry and urban areas help other sectors meet their land reclamation goals.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".