Biosolids Increase Soil Aggregation and Protection of Soil Carbon Five Years after Application on a Crested Wheatgrass Pasture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biosolids application to rangelands and pastures recycles nutrients and organic matter back to soils. The effects of biosolids (20 and 60 dry Mg ha(-)(1)) and N+P fertilizer on soil aggregate stability, bulk density, aeration porosity, and total C and N of stable aggregates were evaluated 4 and 5 yr after surface application to a crested wheatgrass [Agropyron cristatum (L.) Gaertn.] pasture in the southern interior of British Columbia (BC). The experiment was established in 2001 in a randomized complete block design with four replications. The 60 Mg ha(-1) biosolids treatment (Bio 60) had a greater aggregate mean weight diameter (MWD) and proportion of water-stable soil aggregates > 1 mm relative to the control and fertilizer treatments. Temporal variation in aggregate stability was attributed to seasonal variations in soil water content. Surface application of 60 Mg ha(-1) of biosolids increased C concentrations within water-stable aggregates relative to the control from 29 to 104, 24 to 79, and 12 to 38 g kg(-1) for the 2 to 6, 1 to 2, and 0.25 to 1 mm size fractions, respectively. The concentration of N within aggregates increased in similar proportions to C. Neither soil bulk density, nor aeration porosity were affected by biosolids application. Increased aggregation and the accumulation of soil C within aggregates following biosolids application creates a potential for better soil C storage, soil water retention, nutrient availability, and ultimately the overall health of semiarid perennial pastures.
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".