Phosphorus Forms and Chemistry in the Soil Profile under Long‐Term Conservation Tillage: A Phosphorus‐31 Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In many regions, conservation tillage has replaced conventional tilling practices to reduce soil erosion, improve water conservation, and increase soil organic matter. However, tillage can have marked effects on soil properties, specifically nutrient redistribution or stratification in the soil profile. The objective of this research was to examine soil phosphorus (P) forms and concentrations in a long-term study comparing conservation tillage (direct drilling, "No Till") and conventional tillage (moldboard plowing to 20 cm depth, "Till") established on a fine sandy loam (Orthic Humo-Ferric Podzol) in Prince Edward Island, Canada. No significant differences in total carbon (C), total nitrogen (N), total P, or total organic P concentrations were detected between the tillage systems at any depth in the 0- to 60-cm depth range analyzed. However, analysis with phosphorus-31 nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy showed differences in P forms in the plow layer. In particular, the concentration of orthophosphate was significantly higher under No Till than Till at 5 to 10 cm, but the reverse was true at 10 to 20 cm. Mehlich 3-extractable P was also significantly higher in No Till at 5 to 10 cm and significantly higher in Till at 20 to 30 cm. This P stratification appears to be caused by a lack of mixing of applied fertilizer in No Till because the same trends were observed for pH and Mehlich 3-extractable Ca (significantly higher in the Till treatment at 20 to 30 cm), reflecting mixing of applied lime. The P saturation ratio was significantly higher under No Till at 0 to 5 cm and exceeded the recommended limits, suggesting that P stratification under No Till had increased the potential for P loss in runoff from these sites.
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) | 0.000 | 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".