Assessment of Denitrification Gaseous End‐Products in the Soil Profile under Two Water Table Management Practices Using Repeated Measures Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The denitrification process and nitrous oxide (N2O) production in the soil profile are poorly documented because most research into denitrification has concentrated on the upper soil layer (0-0.15 m). This study, undertaken during the 1999 and 2000 growing seasons, was designed to examine the effects of water table management (WTM), nitrogen (N) application rate, and depth (0.15, 0.30, and 0.45 m) on soil denitrification end-products (N2O and N2) from a corn (Zea mays L.) field. Water table management treatments were free drainage (FD) with open drains and subirrigation (SI) with a target water table depth of 0.6 m. Fertility treatments (ammonium nitrate) were 120 kg N ha(-1) (N120) and 200 kg N ha(-1) (N200). During both growing seasons greater denitrification rates were measured in SI than in FD, particularly in the surface soil (0-0.15 m) and at the intermediate (0.15-0.30 m) soil depths under N200 treatment. Greater denitrification rates under the SI treatment, however, were not accompanied with greater N2O production. The decrease in N2O production under SI was probably caused by a more complete reduction of N2O to N2, which resulted in lower N2O to (N2O + N2) ratios. Denitrification rate, N2O production and N2O to (N2O + N2) ratios were only minimally affected by N treatments, irrespective of sampling date and soil depth. Overall, half of the denitrification occurred at the 0.15- to 0.30- and 0.30- to 0.45-m soil layers, and under SI, regardless of fertility treatment level. Consequently, sampling of the 0- to 0.15-m soil layer alone may not give an accurate estimation of denitrification losses under SI practice.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".