Residual effects of one-time manure, crop residue and fertilizer amendments on a desurfaced soil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Larney, F.J., Janzen, H.H. and Olson, A.F. 2011. Residual effectsof one-time manure, crop residue and fertilizer amendments on a desurfaced soil. Can. J. Soil Sci. 91: 1029–1043. Organic amendments are often used to mitigate the effects of soil degradation caused by erosion. In spring 1992, a desurfaced soil (∼15 cm depth mechanically removed to simulate erosion) received one-time applications of amendments (20 Mg ha−1dry wt), and was subsequently seeded annually to spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). By 2009, six treatments (fresh and old cattle manure, hog and poultry manure, alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) hay and straw+200 kg P ha−1) had cumulative yields which were not significantly different (−6.5 to −19.5%) from the topsoil check treatment (no topsoil removed, no amendment). Most (8 of 13) amendment treatments showed significant power function relationships between cumulative grain yield (expressed as a percent of topsoil check) and time while two (hog and poultry manure) were quadratic. Soil organic carbon (SOC) accrued on all treatments over time, increasing significantly from an average of 12.2 g kg−1in 1992 to 13.2 g kg−1(0–15 cm depth) in 2003. Residual amendment effects on total nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) were apparent 11.5 yr after application. Results demonstrated that while drastically disturbed soils may recover productivity in the absence of organic amendments (e.g., eroded check treatment), organic amendments play a residual role in their ongoing maintenance.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".