MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2076315625 · doi:10.4141/s03-082

Decomposition of crop residues under conventional and zero tillage

2004· article· en· W2076315625 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Newton Z. Lupwayi, George W. Clayton, John T. O’Donovan, K. Neil Harker, T. K. Turkington, W. A. Rice

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Soil Science · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural Science and Fertilization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCanolaAgronomyCrop residueNo-till farmingTillageField peaConventional tillageSativumRed CloverMonocultureChemistryDecompositionCrop rotationCropGreen manureBiologyEnvironmental scienceSoil waterSoil fertilityAgricultureSoil science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Field experiments were conducted to determine decomposition patterns of red clover (Trifolium pratense), field pea (Pisum sativum), canola (Brassica rapa) and wheat (Triticum aestivum) residues under zero and conventional tillage. Crop residue amounts produced in 2 trial years ranged from 1.6 t ha-1 for monoculture wheat to 6.05 t ha-1 for peas, and tillage had no effect. The extent of dry matter (DM) decomposition was usually less under zero than under conventional tillage, e.g., 31 to 41% of canola DM decomposed under zero tillage while 41 to 50% decomposed under conventional tillage in 12 mo. Corresponding percentages for other residues under zero and conventional tillage, respectively, were: 65 and 75% for clover, 43 and 45 to 55% for pea, and 27 and 40% for wheat. The rate and extent of DM decomposition were positively correlated with N and P concentrations, and negatively correlated with C/N, C/P, lignin/P and lignin/K ratios. These decomposition patterns have implications for nutrient release and soil cover. Rapid decomposition is not necessarily desirable because the nutrients released are subject to losses in soil. Key words: Biological soil quality, crop residue quality, crop rotation

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations126
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Soil ScienceSame topicAgricultural Science and FertilizationFrench-language works237,207