Response of organic matter to reduced tillage and animal manure in a temperate loamy soil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The impacts of tillage and organic fertilization on soil organic matter (SOM) are highly variable and still unpredictable, and their interactions need to be investigated under various soil, climate and cropping system conditions. Our work examined the effect of reduced tillage and animal manure on SOM stocks and quality in the 0–40 cm layer of a loamy soil under mixed cropping system and humid temperate climate. The soil organic carbon (SOC) and N stocks, particulate organic matter (POM), and C and N mineralization potential (301 days at 15 °C) were measured in a 8‐yr‐old split‐plot field trial, including three tillage treatments [mouldboard ploughing (MP), shallow tillage (ST), no tillage (NT)] and two fertilization treatments [mineral (M), poultry manure 2.2 t/ha/yr C (O)]. No statistically significant interactive effects of tillage and fertilization were measured except on C mineralization. NT and ST showed greater SOC stocks (41.2 and 39.7 t/ha C) than MP (37.1 t/ha C) in the 0–15 cm increment, while no statistical differences were observed at a greater depth. N stocks exhibited similar distribution patterns with regard to tillage effect. Animal manure, applied at a rate representative of typical field application rates, had a smaller impact on SOC and N stocks than tillage. The mean SOC and N stocks were higher under O than M, but the differences were statistically significant only in the 0–5 cm increment. MP showed lower C‐POM stocks than NT and ST in the 0–5 cm increment, whereas greater C‐POM stocks were measured under MP than under NT or under ST in the 20–25 cm increment. Organic fertilization had no impact on C‐POM or N‐POM stocks. In the 0–25 cm increment, NT showed a lower C and N mineralization potential than MP. Our work shows that the sensitivity of SOM to reduced tillage for the whole soil profile can be relatively small in a loamy soil, under humid‐temperate climate. However, POM was particularly sensitive to the differential effects of tillage practices with depth, and indicative of differentiation in total SOM distribution in the soil profile.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".