Transport of Residual Nitrogen and Carbon through Intact Soil Cores Amended with Stockpiled Feedlot Manure with Wood-Chip or Straw Bedding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The environmental impact of using wood chips instead of straw bedding with feedlot manure on transport and leaching potential from feedlot manure is unknown. Our main objective was to determine if transport of total N, total organic N, NO-N, and nonpurgeable organic C (NPOC) to subsurface soil was lower for soils amended with feedlot manure if combined with wood chips compared with straw. A secondary objective was to compare transport of N and NPOC with organic amendments versus inorganic fertilizer. Stockpiled feedlot manure (SM) with wood chip (SM-WD) or barley straw (SM-ST) bedding at 39 Mg (dry wt.) ha, and inorganic fertilizer (IN) at 100 kg N ha, was applied annually for 13 yr to a clay loam soil in a replicated field experiment in southern Alberta, Canada. Intact soil cores were taken in fall 2011 (0-30 cm depth) from the three treatments, and the residual N and NPOC were eluted from the soil cores. Total N, total organic N, and NPOC were determined on filtered (1.0 μm) effluent samples that are primarily dissolved fraction but may contain some small particulate N and C. Peak concentrations, flow-weighted mean concentrations, and mass loss of total N, total organic N, NO-N, and NPOC were significantly ( ≤ 0.05) lower by 35 to 86% for SM-WD compared with SM-ST. Mean recoveries were also significantly lower for SM-WD than SM-ST by 0.07 to 8% (absolute difference). The transport behavior was similar for SM-WD and IN treatment, but solute transport was greater for SM-ST than for IN. Application of stockpiled feedlot manure with wood chips instead of straw bedding may be a beneficial management practice to reduce transport and leaching potential of N fractions and NPOC.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".