Changes in soil extractable sulphate under field fallow conditions after application of three contrasting sulphur fertilizers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A field fallow soil monitoring method was used to evaluate the time of appearance of inorganic sulphate-S from two types of fertilizer S, elemental and sulphate, under the humid weather conditions of coastal British Columbia. In addition to both these types being applied as commercially produced granules, elemental S was applied as a powder. All three S-fertilizers were surface applied, but not incorporated as would likely occur when applied to forages. Soil analyses on a control (no S added) showed that there was limited evidence of leaching of sulphate beyond 30 cm. This meant sampling the soil to 30 cm depth was sufficient to examine the effect of a single spring application of the fertilizer over a full year. Differences in appearance of sulphate in the soil from the three fertilizer sources were distinguished by soil analyses, but the relatively large variability of the measurements limited the precision of time differentiation. The recovery calculations showed that inorganic sulphate from the fertilizers changed to another form (assumed to be organic S) as the season progressed. Maximum recovery of the granulated gypsum fertilizer (62–80%) was greater than for powdered elemental S (36–65%), which was slightly greater than for the SulFer 95 granulated elemental S fertilizer (33–48%).Key words: Elemental S, granulated S, gypsum, S fertilizers, extractable inorganic sulphate
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".