Phosphorus accumulation and leaching in two irrigated soils with incremental rates of cattle manure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The risk of P leaching increases on land that receives manure at rates sufficient to meet crop N requirements, but calcareous subsoils may minimize P loss due to P adsorption. An 8-yr field experiment was conducted to determine the effects of different rates of manure on the accumulation and leaching of soil P in a coarse-textured (CT) soil and a medium-textured (MT) soil under typical irrigation management in southern Alberta. Treatments included a non-manured control and four rates of cattle (Bos taurus) manure (20, 40, 60, and 120 Mg ha-1 yr-1, wet-weight basis). In manured treatments, P addition ranged from about 80 to 450 kg P ha-1 yr-1, while P removal by annual cereal silage crops ranged from 15 to 22 kg P ha-1 yr-1. High soil test P (STP) concentrations occurred to a depth of 0.6 m at the CT site and 0.3 m at the MT site. Increase in STP concentration to 0.6 m was equivalent to 43% of net P input, and increase in total soil P was equivalent to 78% of net P input. Non-recovery of net P input suggests that P loss by leaching occurred at these sites and that leaching was more prevalent at the CT site. These calcareous soils have considerable potential to hold surplus P, but may still allow P leaching.Key words: Manure, phosphorus dynamics, soil test phosphorus, phosphorus leaching, soil texture
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".