MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2157603632 · doi:10.4141/cjss07098

Quantifying soil water conservation in the semiarid region of Saskatchewan, Canada: Effect of fallow frequency and N fertilizer

2008· article· en· W2157603632 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
R. De Jong, C. A. Campbell, R.P. Zentner, Prakash Basnyat, H. Cutforth, R. L. Desjardins

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Soil Science · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoil and Unsaturated Flow
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChernozemPrecipitationFertilizerSummer fallowAgronomyEnvironmental scienceLimitingSoil waterAnimal scienceBiologyEcologySoil scienceGeographyAgriculture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Soil water is the most limiting factor influencing crop production in the semiarid prairies. The effects of fallow frequency and nitrogen (N) fertilization on soil water conservation were quantified for a 40-yr (1967–2006) field experiment conducted on a medium textured Orthic Brown Chernozem (aridic haploboroll) in semiarid southwestern Saskatchewan, in which soil water contents were measured each year in early spring (generally a week prior to seeding), shortly after harvest, and again just prior to freeze-up in the fall. The three treatments examined were continuous spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) (Cont W) and fallow-wheat (F-W), each receiving recommended rates of N and P fertilizer, and Cont W receiving only P. On average, 36% of the precipitation received during the fall and winter months for Cont W (N + P) was conserved in the soil. In the summer fallow system [F-W (N + P)] a greater proportion (42%) of the precipitation was conserved during the first fall and winter. Despite the fact that cumulative precipitation from spring to late fall during the fallow period averaged 243 mm, compared with 152 mm received during the previous fall and winter period, the amount (31 mm) and proportion (13%) of precipitation conserved was considerably less than that during the first overwinter period. These differences were attributed mainly to much higher summer evaporative losses. During the second overwinter period, only 6% of the precipitation received was conserved in the F-W (N + P) system compared with 44% in the first overwinter period. This poor conservation during the second winter was thought to be related to increased snow blowoff due to smaller amounts of standing crop residues, and to the freezing of a wet and bare soil surface, restricting water entry during snowmelt or spring thaw events. Physical based soil-crop models, which must be first improved for overwinter simulations, should be tested on the current data set to further interpret the observations and hypotheses. Compared with the 36% of fall and winter precipitation conserved in Cont W (N + P), inadequate N fertility [Cont W (+ P)] resulted in only 27% of the precipitation being conserved during this period. At harvest, F-W (N + P) and Cont W (N + P) had similar amounts of water in the soil, but Cont W (+ P) had significantly (P < 0.05) more because of reduced water use. However, by the following spring soil water recharge being proportional to crop residues produced resulted in F-W (N + P), Cont W (N + P) and Cont W (+ P) having 252, 209 and 204 mm/1.2 m soil, respectively. Equations were developed that will allow estimation of water conserved as a function of precipitation received between harvest and seeding for F-W (N + P) and Cont W (N + P) (R 2 = 0.52*** in each case). Trends in grain yield were fairly closely correlated with growing season precipitation and potential evapotranspiration [squared semipartial correlation coefficients for Cont W (N + P) 0.32 and 0.17, respectively, and for F-W (N + P) 0.35 and 0.12]; soil water conservation played a minor role in determining final grain yields (squared semipartial correlation coefficient < 0.08). Key words: Soil water, spring wheat, precipitation deficit, yield trends, water conserved trends

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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.218
Threshold uncertainty score0.303

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.179 · 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

Citations18
Published2008
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Soil ScienceSame topicSoil and Unsaturated FlowFrench-language works237,207