MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1980285590 · doi:10.4141/s05-045

Comparison of soil test phosphorus methods in neutral to calcareous Manitoba soils

2006· article· en· W1980285590 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
D. V. Ige, O. O. Akinremi, Don Flaten, Md. Abul Kashem

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Soil Science · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil and Water Nutrient Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoil waterPhosphorusCalcareousSoil testCalcareous soilsEnvironmental scienceChemistryEnvironmental chemistrySoil scienceGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Increasing concern for the amount of P entering lakes in Manitoba may lead to regulation of P concentration in agricultural soils. A possible means for this regulation is the use of soil test P. This may require a means of comparing soil test P analyses as various laboratories in Manitoba employ different methods of soil test P determination. Thus, the objectives of this study were to (i) compare the methods of P determination in Manitoba soils, and (ii) develop equations for converting different soil test P methods from one to another. One hundred and fifteen archived surface soil samples representing major soils of Manitoba were used for the study. Soil test P was determined in these soils using the original Kelowna (K1) method and the two modified Kelowna methods (K2 and K3). Mehlich-3, Olsen- and water extractable-P were also determined for all soils. The results were analyzed statistically and were related using a simple regression analysis model. The amount of P extracted by the different extracting agents varied widely. Mehlich-3 extracted the largest amount of P (a range of 5.4–200 mg kg-1) while water extracted the smallest amount (a range of 0.2–70 mg kg-1). The P extracted by the Olsen and the three Kelowna methods were intermediate between Mehlich-3 and water-P. Our results also showed that the three Kelowna methods were not significantly different from one another. The Olsen method compared well with those of the modified Kelowna methods, but extracted less P than the original Kelowna and Mehlich-3 methods. Overall, the different agronomic soil test P methods were well correlated to each other with correlation coefficients (r) ranging between 0.95 and 0.98. However, the correlations between these soil test methods and water extractable P was not as high. Water extractable P and the agronomic soil test P methods were better related by a non-linear relationship than by a linear relationship. The coefficient of determination (R2) for all the regression equations relating the different agronomic soil test P methods ranged from 0.91 to 0.97. As such, the equations generated in this study can be used to convert the result from one soil test P method to another. Key words: Kelowna extractable phosphorus, Mehlich-3 extractable phosphorus, Olsen extractable phosphorus, water extractable phosphorus

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.293
Threshold uncertainty score0.582

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.269 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Soil ScienceSame topicSoil and Water Nutrient DynamicsFrench-language works237,207