Impact of lignocellulosic and hemicellulosic biochar on soil moisture in low clay soils
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Investigation of post‐amendment biochar impact on low clay soil moisture provides agriculture professionals with much needed data. While laboratory testing is available, we propose inexpensive containers, tools and measuring devices to enable agriculture professionals to directly assess biochar impact on gravimetric water content, shrinkage, and release at point of soil rupture. Sandy loam, silty loam and loamy sand soils are amended (10% ) with lignocellulosic (oak) and hemicellulosic (cardboard) biochars in cup, plug and roll experiments. Cups with oak and cardboard biochar addition produced 76.32% and 75.72% H2O retention respectively, compared to 67.75% (67.75 g H2O 100 g−1 H2O) for controls. Cardboard and oak biochar limited diametric shrinkage to 2.95% (1.29 mm) and 3.75% (1.65 mm) respectively; controls shrunk 6.96% (3.06 mm). Oak and cardboard biochar limited depth shrinkage to 2.95% (0.38 mm) and 2.99% (0.38 mm) respectively; control depth shrinkage is 3.64% (0.47 mm). In roll tests, cardboard and oak biochar treatment yielded 28.07% (1.37 g H2O), and 26.69% (1.3 g H2O) moisture at rupture, respectively, compared with 11.98% (0.58 g) for controls. Significant (p ≤ 0.001) differences in moisture retention, shrinkage and available moisture at rupture confirm biochar contributions to improved moisture performance. Physico‐chemical analyses complemented experimental findings. We find study methods suit the needs of agricultural professionals to measure moisture while working with biochar to amend soils.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".