Effects of soil amendments on assemblages of soil mites (Acari: Oribatida, Mesostigmata) in short-rotation willow plantings in central New York
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigated the effects of several soil amendment materials, potentially useful for willow biomass crops, on the abundance, diversity, and community structure of free-living soil mites (Acari: Oribatida, Mesostigmata) in a 4-year replicated field experiment. Soil treatments included biosolids (lime-stabilized sewage sludge), chicken manure compost, urea fertilizer, black plastic mulch, and control. The predaceous Mesostigmata (40 spp.) responded differently to soil amendment treatments than did saprophagous and mycophagous Oribatida (28 spp.). The urea fertilizer had no persistent effect on mite assemblages. Plastic mulch did not affect Mesostigmata, but had a lasting detrimental effect on oribatid mites. Mesostigmatid mites benefited from application of biosolids, while Oribatida were most adversely affected by this treatment. When plastic mulch and biosolids were used together, the effect of biosolids predominated. Composted chicken manure supported abundant and diverse populations of both groups.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".