MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2124741960 · doi:10.4141/cjss2013-022

Long-term S-fertilization increases carbon sequestration in a sulfur-deficient soil

2014· article· en· W2124741960 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Mekonnen Giweta, Miles Dyck, S. S. Malhi, Dick Puurveen, James A. Robertson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Soil Science · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaUniversity of Alberta
FundersUniversity of AlbertaShell Canada
KeywordsHuman fertilizationSoil carbonAgronomyCarbon sequestrationSulfurHayAnimal scienceChemistryEnvironmental scienceSoil waterSoil scienceNitrogenBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Giweta, M., Dyck, M. F., Malhi, S. S., Puurveen, D. and Robertson, J. A. 2014. Long-term S-fertilization increases carbon sequestration in a sulfur-deficient soil. Can. J. Soil Sci. 94: 295–301. We analyzed the change in total soil organic carbon (SOC) in a long-term fertilization experiment (1980–2008) in a wheat–oat–barley–hay–hay rotation system at the University of Alberta Breton Classical plots. Soil samples were taken in 1980, 1990, 1998, 2003 and 2008 from plots that were fertilized with NPKS and NPK. The objective was to compare the relative effect of S fertilization on the SOC stocks in a S-deficient soil. Long-term S fertilization resulted in an increasing trend in soil organic carbon concentrations over 28 yr when N, P and K supply were adequate. The change in SOC with time was significantly different (P<0.05) between the two treatments. Annual application of NPK in combination with S resulted in an increased accumulation of SOC at a rate of 0.11 Mg C ha−1 yr−1 in the 0- to 15-cm depth over NPK alone. Our results suggest that long-term S fertilization in an S-deficient soil helped to sequester C in the soil.

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 score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.093

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 communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations14
Published2014
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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