Soil quality response to cover crops and amendments in a vineyard in Nova Scotia, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of cover crop mixtures combined with organic and industrial wastes on selected soil properties were assessed in a vineyard in Eastern Canada. The experimental treatments were randomly arranged in a nested design with three replicates. Four alleyway cover crop mixtures [control with no cover crop (CONT), oats + pea + hairy vetch (OPV), oats underseeded with red clover (ORCl), and timothy + alsike + red clover (TM)] were applied to main plots. Five fertility treatments [fertilizer without N (NDEF), full synthetic fertilizer (FERT), wood ash (WA), municipal solid food waste (MSFW), and mussel sediment (MS)] were assigned to sub-plots. Changes in selected soil quality (0–15 cm) were assessed at the beginning of the growing season (May 9, 2011 and April 28, 2012), at bloom in early-July (July 06, 2011 and 2012), and at harvest in late-October (October 31, 2011 and October 20, 2012). At bloom, soil mineral N was 23.56 kg ha −1 for OPV and 20.68 kg ha −1 for ORCl, but only 16.38 kg ha −1 for CONT and 12.53 kg ha −1 for TM. At harvest, soil mineral N was 21.95 kg ha −1 for ORCl, but only 15.43 kg ha −1 for OPV and TM and 9.10 kg ha −1 for CONT. Soil mineral N was mainly in the form of NO 3 − –N until bloom, but at harvest majority of soil mineral N was consisted of NH 4 + –N. After one year of experiment, the three organic and industrial amendments maintained greater soil pH (7.34 for MSFW and 7.35 for WA) and Mehlich-3 extractable P (399 kg P M3 ha −1 for MSFW and 333 kg P M3 ha −1 for WA) compared with FERT (pH 7.17; 306 kg P M3 ha −1 ) and NDEF (pH 7.12; 288 kg P M3 ha −1 ) treatments. After two years of experiment, the combination of cover crop × amendment improved soil organic-C by 8.8% and 10.6% and -N by 8.1% and 9.8% compared with amendment alone and cover crop × FERT treatment, respectively. Potentially mineralizable N estimated by UV-absorbance of NaHCO 3 extraction was greater under ORCl (0.79 abs) compared with the other cover crops (0.69 abs). The microbial biomass C was 205 kg ha −1 under MSFW and 212 kg ha −1 under WA, but only 168 kg ha −1 under NDEF, 125 kg ha −1 under FERT. The combination of cover crops and organic or industrial wastes provide comparable soil mineral N supply and available P with fertilized treatments while improving soil physical and biological properties and overall soil quality in this vineyard production system.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".