Effect of Water Regime on Aggregate‐tensile Strength, Rupture Energy, and Friability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effect of water regime on aggregate‐tensile strength, rupture energy, and friability index was studied in two experiments on sandy loam soils (Glossic Phaeozem/WRB 1998). In Exp. 1, soil from a long‐term, 5‐yr crop rotation receiving animal manure (dairy farm and grass, DFG) was compared with a soil (continuous cereal crop, CCC), which had grown almost continuous cereals and not received animal manure. In Exp. 2, soil from compacted plots (PAC) and uncompacted reference plots (REF) was sampled. The soil was air‐dried and separated into four aggregate‐size classes (i.e., 1–2, 2–4, 4–8, and 8–16 mm). Aggregate‐tensile strength and rupture energy were measured on air‐dry aggregates and on aggregates adjusted to −10, −30, −100, −350 kPa, and −166 MPa pressure potential. Soil friability index was estimated from the tensile strength or specific rupture energy results. Aggregate density was determined on 2‐ to 4‐, 4‐ to 8‐, and 8‐ to 16‐mm aggregates. The CCC soil displayed a greater increase in strength and specific rupture energy with increased dryness than the DFG counterpart. This may be related to differences in organic matter content and dispersible clay. Generally, the relationship between tensile strength or specific‐rupture energy and pressure potential could be described by a power function. However, the rupture energy results could not be fitted by a power function for the Exp. 2 soils. The Exp. 2 soils differed in the stress–strain relationship, i.e., the compacted soil displayed the highest Young modulus, ( Y /ε) in all cases. Maximum values of the friability index were found between −10 and −100 kPa.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".