MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074142886 · doi:10.2134/jeq2013.11.0474

Soil Nitrous Oxide Emissions after Deposition of Dairy Cow Excreta in Eastern Canada

2014· article· en· W2074142886 on OpenAlexaffabout
Philippe Rochette, Martin H. Chantigny, Noura Ziadi, Denis A. Angers, Gilles Bélanger, Édith Charbonneau, D. Pellerin, Chang Liang, Normand Bertrand

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Quality · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil and Water Nutrient Dynamics
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaUniversité LavalAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLoamEnvironmental scienceGrazingSoil waterSoil typeAgronomyNitrous oxideDeposition (geology)Perennial plantSoil classificationGrasslandCow dungAnimal scienceSoil scienceEcologyBiologySedimentFertilizer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Urine and dung deposited by grazing dairy cows are a major source of nitrous oxide (NO), a potent greenhouse gas that contributes to stratospheric ozone depletion. In this study, we quantified the emissions of NO after deposition of dairy cow excreta onto two grassland sites with contrasting soil types in eastern Canada. Our objectives were to determine the impact of excreta type, urine-N rate, time of the year, and soil type on annual NO emissions. Emissions were monitored on sandy loam and clay soils after spring, summer, and fall urine (5 and 10 g N patch) and dung (1.75 kg fresh weight dung) applications to perennial grasses in two successive years. The mean NO emission factor (EF) for urine was 1.09% of applied N in the clay soil and 0.31% in the sandy loam soil, estimates much smaller than the default Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) default value for total excreta N (2%). Despite variations in urine composition and in climatic conditions, these soil-specific EFs were similar for the two urine-N application rates. The time of the year when urine was applied had no impact on emissions from the sandy loam soil, but greater EFs were observed after summer (1.59%) than spring (1.14%) and fall (0.55%) applications in the clay soil. Dung deposition impact on NO emission was smaller than that of urine, with a mean EF of 0.15% in the sandy loam soil and 0.08% in the clay soil. Our results suggest (i) that the IPCC default EF overestimates NO emissions from grazing cattle excreta in eastern Canada by a factor of 4.3 and (ii) that a region-specific inventory methodology should account for soil type and should use specific EFs for urine and dung.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.968

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.207 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations47
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental QualitySame topicSoil and Water Nutrient DynamicsFrench-language works237,207