Autumn and spring applications of ammonium nitrate and urea to bromegrass influence total and light fraction organic C and N in a thin Black Chernozem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An adequate level of organic matter is needed to sustain the productivity, improve the quality of soils and increase soil C. Grassland improvement is considered to be one of the best ways to achieve these goals. A field experiment, in which bromegrass (Bromus inermis Leyss) was grown for hay, was conducted from 1974 to 1996 on a thin Black Chernozemic soil near Crossfield, Alberta. Total organic C (TOC) and total N (TN), and light fraction organic C (LFOC) and light fraction N (LFN) of soil for the treatments receiving 23 annual applications of 112 kg N ha-1 as ammonium nitrate (AN) or urea in early autumn, late autumn, early spring or late spring were compared to zero-N check. Soil samples from 0- to 5- cm (layer 1), 5- to 10- cm (layer 2), 10- to 15- cm (layer 3) and 15- to 30-cm depths were taken in October 1996. Mass of TOC, TN, LFOC and LFN was calculated using equivalent mass technique. The concentration and mass of TOC and LFOC, TN and LFN in the soil were increased by N fertilization compared to the zero-N check. The majority of this increase in C and N occurred in the surface 5-cm depth and predominantly occurred in the light fraction material. In layer 1, the average increase from N fertilization was 3.1 Mg C ha-1 for TOC, 1.82 Mg C ha-1 for LFOC, 0.20 Mg N ha-1 for TN and 0.12 Mg N ha-1 for LFN. The LFOC and LFN were more responsive to N fertilization compared to the TOC and TN. Averaged across application times, more TOC, LFOC, TN and LFN were stored under AN than under urea in layer 1, by 1.50, 1.21, 0.06 and 0.08 Mg ha-1, respectively. Lower volatilization loss and higher plant uptake of surfaced-broadcast N were probable reasons from more soil C and N storage under AN source. Time of N application had no effect on the soil characteristics studied. In conclusion, most of the N-induced increase in soil C and N occurred in the 0- to 5-cm depth (layer 1) and in the light fraction material, with the increases being greater under AN than urea. Key words: Bromegrass, light fraction C and N, N source, soil, total organic C and N
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".