Soil salinity and sodicity after application of fresh and composted manure with straw or wood-chips
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Limited information exists on the effect of fresh versus composted beef cattle manure containing straw or wood chips on salinity (EC), soluble salts (Ca, Mg, Na, K, Cl, SO 4 ), sodicity (sodium adsorption ratio, SAR), and potassium adsorption ratio (PAR) status of soil in the Great Plains region of North America. A site on a clay loam soil under irrigated barley (Hordeum vulgare) in southern Alberta was used for this study. The treatments were three rates (13, 39, 77 Mg ha -1 dry material) of fresh manure (FM) or composted manure (CM) containing either straw (ST) or wood-chip (WD) bedding, one inorganic (IN) fertilizer treatment, and a control (CON) treatment. All treatments were applied in the fall of 1998, 1999, and 2000. Soil sampling was conducted in the fall of 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001 prior to manure and fertilizer application. Our results indicated that applying CM to irrigated barley for 3 yr at rates up to 77 Mg ha -1 should not cause an increase in any of the salinity variables compared with FM. Calcium, Mg, K, Cl, EC, and PAR were significantly higher for ST than WD bedding at certain rates and years. Year of sampling had a significant effect on Ca, K, Cl, SO 4 , EC, SAR and PAR. Salt distribution profiles indicated no accumulation of Ca, Mg, and SO 4 in the soil profile relative to the control, increases in K and PAR at the 0- to 15-cm depth, increases in Na, Cl, EC, and SAR at the 0- to 30-cm depth, and accumulation of Cl at all depths. Overall, CM should not increase soil salinity and sodicity compared with FM, and bedding material may be a potential tool to manage certain salinity variables in the soil. Key words: Soluble salts, electrical conductivity, sodium adsorption ratio, fresh manure, compost, bedding
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".