Comparison of slow‐release nitrogen yield from organic soil amendments and chemical fertilizers and implications for regeneration of disturbed sites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Soil amendments are commonly used to regenerate nutrient levels on disturbed construction sites or mined lands prior to revegetation. Management of nitrogen (N) inputs to the degraded substrates is difficult because the low level of ambient fertility on disturbed substrates requires large total N inputs to sustain revegetative growth, but it also requires low N bioavailability in order to avoid weedy invasion and eutrophication of local watersheds. Commonly available soil amendment materials have a wide variety of N contents and release rates, making specification of appropriate N amendments difficult. We compared N release rates of a variety of organic‐based soil amendments and chemical fertilizers in long‐term aerobic incubation chambers in the lab and at a field revegetation site. The N release rate from these amendments fell into four general groups: (1) rapid N release from soluble chemical fertilizer formulations, (2) longer, controlled N release from chemical‐based, slow‐release formulations, and a two‐phase release pattern (rapid initial phase, slower second phase) from (3) organic‐based blends, as well as (4) unsupplemented municipal yard‐waste composts. The release rates from organic‐based amendments were about three times faster in the 30°C laboratory incubations than in the cool, moist winter growing season at a field site in the Central Valley of California. Relative rates of N release can be compared between amendment materials to help guide selection of N amendments, according to the plant‐growth goals of the revegetation project. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".