MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116898873 · doi:10.4141/cjss08041

Effects of a single cycle of tillage on long-term no-till prairie soils

2009· article· en· W2116898873 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
C.D. Baan, M.C.J. Grevers, J.J. Schoenau

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Soil Science · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTillageAgronomyEnvironmental scienceNo-till farmingSoil waterConventional tillageMulch-tillSoil carbonMinimum tillageSoil fertilitySoil scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A study was conducted to examine the effect of tillage on soil conditions and crop growth at three long-term (> 10 yr) no-till sites, one in each of the Brown, Black, and Gray soil zones of Saskatchewan. The four tillage treatments consisted of one cycle of tillage at three levels of intensity: spring cultivation only, fall + spring cultivation, and fall + spring + disc cultivation, all applied to no-till and also a no-till control. Total and particulate soil organic carbon, soil pH, and soil aggregation were not affected by the tillage operations. Tillage decreased the bulk density in the 5- to 10-cm soil depth, but did not affect soil water content (0-10 cm) or spring soil temperature (0-5 cm). Tillage decreased stratification of available phosphorus to some extent, but there appeared to be no associated effect on crop P uptake. Tillage did not effect crop production in any of the 3 yr following its imposition, except at one site where, in the first year, apparent tillage-induced nutrient immobilization resulted in lower yields. Overall, the imposition of one cycle of tillage on long-term no-till soils appears to have little effect on soil properties or crop growth.Key words: No-till, nutrient stratification, soil organic carbon, tillage

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.842
Threshold uncertainty score0.985

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations48
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Soil ScienceSame topicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsFrench-language works237,207