Response of forage grass to sulphur applications on coastal British Columbia soils
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Little is known about the S requirement of coastal British Columbia soils. Spring gypsum applications increased yield in two and decreased yield in one of six forage grass rate-of-application field trials. Yield effects did not occur at every cut. At the sites where yield depression was observed, the effect primarily occurred at the intermediate rates and S concentration increased with increased rate of application. Luxury uptake of S (increased S concentrations without a yield effect) showed residual effects occurred into the third season after application, despite the abundant winter precipitation common in the area. Yields were affected in a form × rate × time trial, but not at every cut. Powdered elemental S was available to plants sooner than Agri-Sul (an elemental S fertilizer), but neither as quickly as gypsum. Four of five traditional soil test S extractants were significantly correlated with first-cut uptake of S in the control treatment, with the bicarbonate extraction having the highest coefficient (r2= 0.29). The smaller amount of sulphate in calcium chloride compared to the other extractants showed soil adsorption. Soil S tests are required to manage S for optimum yield without accelerated soil acidification. Key words: S fertilizer forms, S rates, gypsum, elemental S fertilizer, Agri-Sul, plant S uptake, soil S tests
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".