Effects of moisture condition and freeze/thaw cycles on surface soil aggregate size distribution and stability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wang, E., Cruse, R. M., Chen, X. and Daigh, A. 2012. Effects of moisture condition and freeze/thaw cycles on surface soil aggregate size distribution and stability. Can. J. Soil Sci. 92: 529–536. Freeze/thaw cycles can affect soil aggregate stability, which in turn impacts wind and water erosion. The objectives of this laboratory study were: (1) to determine the effect of variable freeze/thaw cycles and soil water conditions on aggregate size distribution and stability; and (2) to evaluate differences in aggregate size distribution and stability between disturbed soil and undisturbed soil cores as affected by freeze/thaw cycles and soil water conditions. Surface soil was collected before freezing in late fall of 2009. Aggregates isolated from disturbed soil or intact soil cores were subjected to a factorial combination of 3 gravimetric water content treatments: 0.15 m3 m−3, 0.23 m3 m−3 or 0.30 m3 m−3, and 3 freeze/thaw treatments: 0, 3, or 9 cycles. A freeze/thaw cycle involved soil freezing at –10∘C for 24 h, followed by thawing at 5∘C for 24 h. Most aggregate size classes were affected significantly (P<0.05) by freeze/thaw cycles except for wet-sieved aggregates >5 mm. Dry-sieved aggregates were relatively more sensitive to the freeze/thaw treatment than wet-sieved aggregates. The mean weight diameter (MWD) of dry-sieved aggregates was significantly (P<0.05) greater at 0.30 m3 m−3 than 0.15 m3 m−3 water content, but the opposite trend was observed for MWD of wet aggregates and aggregate stability. There was a significant (P<0.05) response of the MWD in dry-sieved aggregates to the interactive freeze/thaw×water content effect that differed for aggregates obtained from disturbed soil and those in the undisturbed soil core, but not for the MWD of wet-sieved aggregates and aggregate stability.
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 | 0.000 | 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".