How do changes in bulk soil organic carbon content affect carbon concentrations in individual soil particle fractions?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We test the common assumption that organic carbon (OC) storage occurs on sand-sized soil particles only after the OC storage capacity on silt- and clay-sized particles is saturated. Soil samples from a Brookston clay loam in Southwestern Ontario were analysed for the OC concentrations in bulk soil, and on the clay (<2 μm), silt (2-53 μm) and sand (53-2000 μm) particle size fractions. The OC concentrations in bulk soil ranged from 4.7 to 70.8 g C kg(-1) soil. The OC concentrations on all three particle size fractions were significantly related to the OC concentration of bulk soil. However, OC concentration increased slowly toward an apparent maximum on silt and clay, but this maximum was far greater than the maximum predicted by established C sequestration models. In addition, significant increases in OC associated with sand occurred when the bulk soil OC concentration exceeded 30 g C kg(-1), but this increase occurred when the OC concentration on silt + clay was still far below the predicted storage capacity for silt and clay fractions. Since the OC concentrations in all fractions of Brookston clay loam soil continued to increase with increasing C (bulk soil OC content) input, we concluded that the concept of OC storage capacity requires further investigation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".