Nutrient Dynamics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Environmental concerns currently trigger the development of more sustainable soil fertility management strategies. It appears that effective sustainable practices are those that enhance natural soil processes. Soil processes include the decomposition of residues and mineralization of organic matter, nitrogen fixation, nitrification, nitrate leaching, denitrification and sulfur reduction. Natural soil processes also include less well-understood interactions, namely, those leading to the dissolution of minerals by organic acids, as well as rhizospheric and mycorrhizospheric interactions. Plants, associated with arbuscular mycorrhizal symbionts, supply and distribute carbon and energy, sustaining most of the biotic mechanisms responsible for nutrient release from soil, and maintaining organic pools of nutrients. Among these pools, the microbial biomass and fine roots pools, with their very fast turnover time, are particularly important as they can maintain large amounts of nutrients in very labile form and, therefore, increase soil fertility. Agricultural soil systems are very dynamic and are characterized by large spatial and temporal variations, which are largely driven by plant development. In addition, nutrient dynamics in agricultural soil systems seem particularly influenced by temperature, moisture, and nitrogen and phosphorus fertilization. Nitrogen losses from soil are reduced in systems where nitrogen release corresponds to plant demand. Biological nitrogen fixation is a sound way to input nitrogen in cropping systems. Phosphorus losses can be reduced through increased reliance on the arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis of crops. Soils are diverse and complex systems, which, furthermore, respond to increasingly unpredictable climatic variations. Optimal agricultural soil management is a moving target and, hence, a challenging goal that will never be totally reached.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.099 | 0.049 |
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".