Soil solution pH measurements using in-line chambers with tension lysimeters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During soil water extraction, pH can change as a result of atmospheric gas exchange. The pH change is important for monitoring soil acidification and determination of mineralogic controls on the solution composition. As part of a global change programme in Greenland for monitoring long-term changes in Arctic soil solutions we observed that the pH of extracted soil solutions increased in the order of a half pH unit during traditional sampling and handling of the soil solution. CO2 degassing is often considered the most important factor causing such a pH increase. Thus, traditional as well as in-line pH measurements were performed during the summers 1997 and 1998. The in-line method was designed to eliminate atmospheric contact with soil solutions prior to pH measurements. The time-dependent pH error was quantified based on laboratory experiments with soil solution under controlled temperatures and CO2 partial pressures. Equilibrium speciation modelling was used to predict pH values observed in the field and in the laboratory and the model was found to reproduce the observations well. We conclude that traditional pH measurements on extracted soil solutions in the pH range from 5 to 7 are not appropriate for detailed pH measurements due to errors associated with CO2 degassing. In-line measurements provide more accurate measurement necessary for detailed studies on soil acidification dynamics. Key words: pH, carbon dioxide degassing, soil solution, tension lysimeter, arctic soil
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".