MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019899272 · doi:10.1139/x09-147

Adsorption of dissolved nitrogen by forest mineral soils

2009· article· en· W2019899272 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Dolly N. Kothawala, Tim R. Moore

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil and Water Nutrient Dynamics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaBIOCAP Canada
KeywordsDissolved organic carbonChemistrySoil waterPodzolEnvironmental chemistryAdsorptionNitrateAmmoniumDesorptionNitrogenSoil carbonSoil scienceEnvironmental scienceOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dissolved nitrogen (N) species, including ammonium (NH 4 + -N), nitrate (NO 3 – -N), and dissolved organic nitrogen (DON), are important nutrient sources in soils. The mobility of DON and NH 4 + -N in soil solutions is influenced by abiotic adsorption to mineral soil particle surfaces. We determined relationships between soil properties and their ability to adsorb NH 4 + -N, NO 3 – -N, and DON, using batch experiments. A range of 41 mineral horizons was collected from across Canada, including Podzols, Brunisols, Luvisols, Gleysols, and an organic soil. The adsorption of DON and dissolved organic carbon (DOC) were positively correlated (R 2 = 0.86), and both were best explained by the amount of iron and aluminum associated with poorly crystalline phases. Adsorption of NH 4 + -N was strongest in Gleysols and Luvisols, while adsorption of NO 3 – -N was weak in all soils. A reduction in the DOC:DON ratio was observed for most mineral horizons (89%) after equilibration from an original ratio of 35:1. Mineral horizons with a net desorption of DON had a significantly greater reduction in the final DOC:DON ratios than horizons with a net adsorption of DON. The results from this study found that while similar soil properties could predict DOC and DON adsorption, DON was slightly more mobile than DOC.

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)0.001
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 score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Citations46
Published2009
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicSoil and Water Nutrient DynamicsFrench-language works237,207