Influence of textural layering on field capacity of coarse soils
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Zettl, J. D., Barbour, S. L., Huang, M., Si, B. C. and Leskiw, L. A. 2011. Influence of textural layering on field capacity of coarse soils. Can. J. Soil Sci. 91: 133–147. The current method of designing reclamation covers for land disturbed by oil sands mining in northern Alberta, Canada, relies on an estimate of the field capacity (FC) of both natural soils and reclamation soil prescriptions. The objective of this research was to examine the influence of layered, textural heterogeneity on FC. Field testing was performed on seven natural sites with coarse-textured soils that support a range of ecosite classes. Double-ring infiltration and drainage tests with real time monitoring of water content were undertaken along with test pit excavation and detailed profile sampling. The measured water storage at FC following drainage demonstrated that higher water storage at FC values are associated with increased textural heterogeneity, and these sites reflected more productive ecosite class. Rigorous, physically based modeling illustrated that a texturally heterogeneous site can have water storage at FC within 1 m profile that is between 110 to 330 mm higher than a homogeneous profile with the same average texture. These higher values of water storage at FC in texturally heterogeneous sites could account for the differences in observed ecosite productivity. This work highlights the importance of textural layering in designing reclamation covers in coarse-textured soils to maximize FC.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".