Soil Aggregation and Biochemical Properties following the Application of Fresh and Composted Organic Amendments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of fresh and composted paper sludge on macroaggregate stability of a silt loam under field conditions, and to assess the possible role of carbohydrate fractions and humic substances. The treatments included fresh paper mill sludge (PMS) and its compost (CPMS) applied at a rate of 40 Mg ha −1 with or without a mineral N fertilizer (120 kg N ha −1 ), N fertilizer only (recommended rate of 160 kg N ha −1 ), and an unamended control. Measurements of total and amino sugars and humic substances were made on slaking‐resistant aggregates 2 yr after the last of three successive annual applications of the treatments. Compared with the treatments that received no organic amendment, the PMS and CPMS applications increased macroaggregate stability by an average of 45%. The effects of fresh vs. composted amendments on soil macroaggregates and their organic C contents were similar but differences in C composition were observed. Humic acid content of aggregates >2 mm was significantly higher (50%) with CPMS than PMS, although part of this effect could be attributed to the slightly greater C application rate with CPMS. Conversely, glucosamine content, an indicator of fungi abundance, was significantly greater following PMS than CPMS application. We concluded that microorganisms, in particular fungi, were a more important factor of stable macroaggregation in the soil amended with fresh sludge, while humic substances played a greater role in compost‐amended soil. These effects were long lasting in the field since they were still noticeable 2 yr after the last application.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".