Effects of selected amendments on soil properties and emergence of wheat seedlings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Crusting can have a prominent effect on seedling emergence. Crust formation at the soil surface is a common feature of many soils including the silty loam soil (Aquic Haplocalsids) from the Konya plain examined in this investigation. The effects of different soil amendments on modulus of rupture and aggregate stability in water were measured in a pot experiment in the laboratory. Seedling emergence of wheat (Triticum durum Desf.) and penetration resistance was investigated in a microplot experiment in the greenhouse. Portland cement, barnyard manure (dairy cattle), city waste compost (municipal refuse) and wheat straw were used in the pot experiment, and Portland cement and barnyard manure were investigated in the microplot experiment. Soil amendments were added to the soil samples at rates of 0, 2, 4 and 6% (wt/wt) and the samples including a control were incubated at about field capacity water content for up to 100 d in the laboratory. The moduli of rupture values and water stable aggregates were measured after 25, 50, 75 and 100 d of incubation. All the soil amendments reduced the modulus of rupture compared with the control soil sample. The modulus of rupture of the control and mixes with Portland cement, barnyard manure, city waste compost and wheat straw (6%, wt/wt) after 100 d of incubation were 726, 0, 494, 564 and 113 kPa, respectively. Aggregate stabilities of the control and the soil amended with Portland cement, barnyard manure, city waste compost and wheat straw (6%, wt/wt) after 100 d of incubation were 5.16, 55.02, 10.82, 8.44 and 34.98%, respectively. Seedling emergences of wheat and penetration resistances of the control and the soil amended with Portland cement and barnyard manure (6%, wt/wt) in the microplots were 29, 80 and 36%; 489, 0 and 471 kPa, respectively. Key words: Surface sealing, aggregate stability, seedling emergence, penetration resistance.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".