Ca-Mg ratios for evaluating pedogenesis in the piedmont province of the southeastern United States of America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The nature of parent materials strongly influences soil development in the southeastern US Piedmont. In this region, most parent materials (saprolite) form from metamorphic and igneous felsic and mafic rocks. Although most soils in felsic terrains are acid and kaolinitic, soils formed from mafic parent materials range from kaolinitic Ultisols to Alfisols with smectite. Because it is sometimes difficult in soils developed in mixed terrains to determine parent material influence, exchangeable Ca/Mg ratios were used to elucidate soil-parent material relationships. Establishment of Ca/Mg signatures diagnostic of soil-parent material suites could facilitate soil mapping activities and forest fertilization regimes. Characterization data collected as part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey (mainly Georgia and Alabama) were evaluated, and soils were grouped by parent material type. The Ca/Mg ratios did not prove to be diagnostic for separating parent materials; however, significant depth trends existed. In most of the groupings, Ca/Mg ratios decreased with depth in the solum, which was most likely due to selective retention of Ca2+ and the effects of bio-cycling. The ratio either increased below the solum (mafic soils), or continued to decrease (felsic soils). Thus, these ratios are useful for identifying solum depth in some of these soils. The (Ca + K)/Mg ratios were more diagnostic with regard to parent material. These data suggest soils possessing ratios of (Ca + K)/Mg < 2 within the solum (excluding surface horizons) have been significantly influenced by mafic parent materials. Key words: Piedmont, Ca-Mg ratios, Ultisols, Alfisols, pedogenesis
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".