Comparison of three simple field methods for ammonia volatilization from manure
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Land application of swine manure can result in a loss of nitrogen (N) through ammonia (NH 3 ) volatilization. Accurate NH 3 loss assessments are essential to support the development of regional and global emission factors and identify best management strategies for reducing losses. The objectives of this study were to simultaneously assess the reliability and applicability of three simple NH 3 flux measurement techniques and their effectiveness and usefulness for the measurement of emissions from surface-applied swine manure. Ammonia losses from two chamber systems were compared: (i) static and (ii) wind tunnel chamber, as well as the (iii) micrometeorological theoretical profile shape (TPS) method. A series of field tests was performed at the Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) Research Farm in Harrington, Prince Edward Island (PE) on a sandy loam, stubble field that was surface applied with 100 kg NH 4 -N ha -1 of liquid swine manure. After application the three NH 3 emission techniques were established and measurements were performed over a 5-d period. Ammonia losses from the wind tunnels were comparable with those from the TPS method. The static chambers were found to underestimate NH 3 emissions (by ~95–99%), compared with both the wind tunnel and TPS methods. It is therefore recommended that either the TPS or wind tunnel approaches be used to more accurately quantify NH 3 losses for field systems. Key words: Ammonia volatilization, flux measurements, swine manure, micrometeorology, static chambers, wind tunnel
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.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 it