Effects of compaction on aeration and morphology of boreal forest soils in Alberta, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Poor soil aeration is a factor limiting the productivity of boreal forests in western Canada. Soil compaction reduces air-filled porosity, which is hypothesized to further restrict soil aeration. Soil morphology at nine clearcut sites in west-central Alberta that had been significantly compacted by ground-based harvesting equipment and soil in an adjacent non-trafficked control were related to air-filled porosity and redox regimes. A warm-season air-filled porosity of about 0.1 m3 m-3 separated soils having adequate or restricted aeration, and was confirmed by redox < 200 mV. The values applied to both the undisturbed and compacted soil. Ratios of Feo:Fed and acid-soluble Fe:Mn in concretions were only associated with hydromorphism of undisturbed soil. Compaction reduced soil aeration for 3–4 yr after harvesting, and changed morphology of moderately well-drained soil to imperfectly drained soil at two of four sites; faster removal of water because of slope or vegetation probably prevented changes at the other two sites. Morphology of better and poorer drained soils was not altered by compaction because they either remain adequately aerated or aeration was naturally restricted. Sites with moderately well-drained soils are most at risk of detrimental soil compaction and in need of protective measures to maintain their productivity in these forests. Key words: Soil morphology, drainage class, air-filled porosity, soil aeration, redox potential, boreal forest soils, compaction
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".