Impact of Soil Texture on the Distribution of Soil Organic Matter in Physical and Chemical Fractions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous research on the protection of soil organic C from decomposition suggests that soil texture affects soil C stocks. However, different pools of soil organic matter (SOM) might be differently related to soil texture. Our objective was to examine how soil texture differentially alters the distribution of organic C within physically and chemically defined pools of unprotected and protected SOM. We collected samples from two soil texture gradients where other variables influencing soil organic C content were held constant. One texture gradient (16–60% clay) was located near Stewart Valley, Saskatchewan, Canada and the other (25–50% clay) near Cygnet, OH. Soils were physically fractionated into coarse‐ and fine‐particulate organic matter (POM), silt‐ and clay‐sized particles within microaggregates, and easily dispersed silt‐ and clay‐sized particles outside of microaggregates. Whole‐soil organic C concentration was positively related to silt plus clay content at both sites. We found no relationship between soil texture and unprotected C (coarse‐ and fine‐POM C). Biochemically protected C (nonhydrolyzable C) increased with increasing clay content in whole‐soil samples, but the proportion of nonhydrolyzable C within silt‐ and clay‐sized fractions was unchanged. As the amount of silt or clay increased, the amount of C stabilized within easily dispersed and microaggregate‐associated silt or clay fractions decreased. Our results suggest that for a given level of C inputs, the relationship between mineral surface area and soil organic matter varies with soil texture for physically and biochemically protected C fractions. Because soil texture acts directly and indirectly on various protection mechanisms, it may not be a universal predictor of whole‐soil C content.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".