MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005018293 · doi:10.4141/s06-010

Soil nutrient stratification and uptake by wheat after seven years of conventional and zero tillage in the Northern Grain belt of Canada

2006· article· en· W2005018293 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Newton Z. Lupwayi, George W. Clayton, John T. O’Donovan, K. Neil Harker, T. K. Turkington, Y. K. Soon

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Soil Science · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
Canadian institutionsAlberta Crop Industry Development FundAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersAlberta Agricultural Research Institute
KeywordsAgronomyTillageNo-till farmingCanolaConventional tillageEnvironmental scienceNutrientMonocultureChemistrySoil fertilitySoil waterBiologySoil science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The distribution of NaHCO 3 -extractable nitrate-N, ammonium-N, phosphorus (P) and potassium (K) with soil depth (0 to 20 cm in 5-cm increments) at Fort Vermilion (58°23′N 116°02′ W), Alberta, was described in the 7th and 8th years of conventional and zero tillage following placement of red clover (Trifolium pratense) green manure (GM), field pea (Pisum sativum), canola (Brassica rapa) and monoculture wheat (Triticum aestivum) residues. Soil nitrate-N concentrations under zero tillage were greater than those under conventional tillage in the 0–5 cm soil layer, below which the concentrations were similar. Ammonium-N and K concentrations followed a similar pattern. However, soil P concentrations were usually not different between tillage systems in the 0–5 cm soil layer, but the concentrations decreased more under zero tillage than under conventional tillage at lower depths. A notable exception for soil phosphate was under canola residues, where the concentration was greater under zero tillage than under conventional tillage at all depths. Uptake of N, P or K by a subsequent wheat crop was usually greater (though not always significantly) under zero tillage than under conventional tillage, and there were no interactions between tillage and crop residue. Therefore, differences in nutrient stratification between the two tillage systems did not translate into differences in wheat nutrient uptake. Key words: Conservation tillage, crop rotation, nutrient uptake, soil nitrogen, soil phosphorus, soil potassium

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.346
Threshold uncertainty score0.356

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.175
Teacher spread0.169 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations65
Published2006
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Soil ScienceSame topicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsFrench-language works237,207