Freeze–thaw cycles and soil water content effects on infiltration rate of three Saskatchewan soils
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fouli, Y., Cade-Menun, B. J. and Cutforth, H. W. 2013. Freeze–thaw cycles and soil water content effects on infiltration rate of three Saskatchewan soils. Can. J. Soil Sci. 93: 485–496. Many soils at high latitudes or elevations freeze and thaw seasonally. More frequent freeze–thaw cycles (FTCs) may affect ecosystem diversity and productivity because freeze–thaw cycles cause changes in soil physical properties and affect water movement in the landscape. This study examined the effects of FTCs (0, 1, 5, and 10) and antecedent soil water content [at soil water potentials (SWP) −1.5, −0.033 and −0.02 MPa] on the infiltration rate of three Saskatchewan soils (a clay, a loam, and a loamy sand). A tension infiltrometer was used at tensions [water potentials of the tension infiltrometer (WPT)] −5, −10 and −15 cm. Infiltration rates increased with increasing SWPs for the loam and clay soils due to higher infiltrability into drier soils. Infiltration rates decreased with increasing SWPs for the loamy sand, probably the result of less surface tension, unimodal porosity, and increased gravitational potential. Infiltration rates either decreased or did not change with increasing FTCs, and this may be due to increased water viscosity as temperatures approach freezing. Also, ice may have formed in soil pores after frequent FTCs, causing lower infiltration rates. Infiltration rates for clay at −1.5 MPa were higher than for loam or loamy sand, probably the result of clay mineralogy and potential shrinking and cracking. Soil texture and initial water content had a significant effect on infiltration rates, and FTCs either maintained or lowered infiltration rates.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".