The role of lysimeters in the development of our understanding of soil water and nutrient dynamics in ecosystems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper considers the development of lysimeters and their role in the evolution of our understanding of the dynamics of water and plant nutrients in ecosystems. Lysimeters are delineated volumes of soil. They can be divided into those filled with repacked soil, and those enclosing an undisturbed monolith. The original repacked lysimeter was developed to investigate the concept that all life stems from water, and is considered to be the first quantitative experiment in history. It focussed on the growth of a willow tree and how much of the increment was derived from the soil solids. From this start some 360 years ago lysimeters quickly contributed to the quantification of the transpiration stream and the differentiation of water loss by evaporation from the soil from loss via the leaves of plants. Chronologically, further development began about 210 years ago with the exploration of whether precipitation could account for all the water moving from the land to the oceans, and was the origin of springs. In part, this required a careful quantification of soil evaporation, runoff and deep drainage. This in turn led to the quantification of the soil water balance. As a result, we are able to predict indices, such as crop water use efficiency, drainage and irrigation requirements, contributions to stream flow, groundwater recharge and nutrient loss by leaching. Recognition that the quantification of drainage and leaching required soils of natural structure and profile integrity resulted in the building of the first monolith lysimeter and the development of ‘pan’ or ‘Ebermayer’ lysimeters. Improved technology allowed a better understanding of the role of soil in the regional water balance through the development of small diameter lysimeters that could be transported to a central location subject to the same climatic variables. In contrast, other technological changes allowed the impact of typical soil management operations carried out using regular machinery to be applied on field‐scale lysimeters. The contribution of the different types of lysimeter to the development of our understanding of soil use and management is considered.
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 | 0.016 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".