Field testing a Lime Requirement Test for Atlantic Canada, and effect of Soil pH on nutrient uptake
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Four crops were grown in three soil types at four sites near Truro, Nova Scotia in 1998. Water pH measurements and the Adams-Evans (A-E) Lime Requirement Test (LRT) suggested amounts of limestone required to bring the soil pH to 6.5. However, to evaluate the accuracy of three LRT procedures (A-E, Shoemaker, McLean & Pratt, and Mehlich), a range of lime rates (0 to 12 MT/ha) was chosen for each crop at each site. Fertilizers were applied to each plot based on the present Nova Scotia Soil Test Recommendations. Whole plant or leaf tissue was sampled at Zadoks 77 (spring wheat), Zadoks 85 (barley), ear development (sweet corn) and at each of 7 cuttings of turfgrass. The tissue samples were digested and analyzed by ICP for up to 10 elements and by a CNS Analyzer for N. Soil samples were taken at the final harvest and the soil pH was determined. Lime applications increased the pH of all plots, proportional to the application rates, however, the relationship was not always linear. Of the three tests, the SMP LRT most closely estimated the amount of lime required to increase the soil pH to 6.5; the other two tests underestimated the lime requirement. In this paper, only data concerning barley tissue nutrient content and uptake was related to soil pH; nutrient uptake was highest at pH 6.12 following a 6 t ha -1 lime application. Another paper will describe how the lime applications affected the nutrient uptake of the other three crops.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it