Nitrate Leaching in Two Irrigated Soils with Different Rates of Cattle Manure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Manure applied to irrigated land may potentially contaminate groundwater with NO3-N. An 8-yr field experiment was conducted in southern Alberta, Canada, to determine the effects of different rates of manure on NO3-N accumulation in two irrigated soil types and NO3-N leaching to shallow groundwater. An annual cereal silage was grown at each site and irrigation was based on soil moisture depletion. Treatments included a control, nitrogen fertilizer (NF) at 180 kg N ha(-1) yr(-1), and four rates of cattle (Bos taurus) manure (20, 40, 60, and 120 Mg ha(-1) yr(-1), wet-weight basis). Annual manure applications for 8 yr resulted in NO3-N accumulation in the soil profile at both sites. For every megagram of total N added from manure, NO3-N in the 0- to 1.5-m layer increased by about 50 kg ha(-1) at the coarse-textured (CT) site and by about 100 kg ha(-1) at the medium-textured (MT) site. Silage yield for all of the manure treatments was similar to yield for the NF treatment after the first 3 to 4 yr of annual manure applications. The greatest manure rate and NF treatments significantly increased NO3-N concentrations in groundwater at the CT site. Groundwater NO3-N concentrations were not adversely affected by manure or NF applications at the MT site. An annual cattle manure application rate of 20 Mg ha(-1) provided sufficient N for irrigated cereal silage production and minimized NO3-N leaching in a medium-textured 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".