Soil and alfalfa response after amelioration of subsoil acidity in a fine sandy loam Podzol in Prince Edward Island
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Subsoils in Prince Edward Island have poor chemical and often physical quality for root growth that may present a barrier to development of alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.). This study was conducted to characterise the response or benefit, on soil properties and alfalfa growth, of chemical amelioration and loosening of the subsoil. In 1987, the following three treatments were imposed on an acidic, fine sandy loam, Humo-Ferric Podzol: control (no subsoiling or lime), subsoiling alone, and subsoiling plus lime (5 Mg ha−1 dry CaCO3) mixed into the subsoil. The subsoiler was a Wye Double-Digger, a combined plough and rotary cultivator that facilitated the mixing of lime into the soil over the 230–480 mm depth. Management of the 0–200 mm soil depth was the same for all treatments. Growth of alfalfa and change in soil properties were monitored over time. In 2 of 4 yr (1991–1994), alfalfa yield was significantly (P < 0.05) increased by the subsoil plus lime treatment, compared with subsoiling alone or the control. Yield increases were related to periods of low growing season precipitation. Subsoil amelioration increased alfalfa root penetration (by 90 mm) and reduced leaf Mn concentration. Over an 8-yr period (1987–1994), soil exchangeable Ca was increased over fourfold, while exchangeable Al was decreased threefold in the ameliorated subsoil, compared with the control. Soil pH (in water) was increased from 4.8 to near 6.0. There was some evidence that liming of the topsoil improved the subsoil chemistry over time. Bulk density and penetrometer resistance contours, measured over time, indicated that the soil loosening effect was sustained throughout the soil profile over the duration of the study. Soil biological properties were not changed by the subsoil treatments. Key words: Subsoil acidity, podzol, lime, deep placement, alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.), cool-humid climate
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".