Decomposition and Nutrient Release of Tree Legumes in an Agroforest System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The research compared biomass production and nutrient release in an alley cropping system in two collection methods, the litterbag method and the direct collection method (Morley, Bennett, & Clark, 1964). The system was implemented in 2015 at 2017, at the Maranhão Federal University, Maranhão, Brazil. The experiment was a randomized block design with four treatments, consisting of leucaena+sombreiro (Leucaena leucocephala and Clitoria fairchildiana), leucena+acacia (Leucaena leucocephala and Acacia mangium), gliricidia+sombreiro (Gliricidia sepium and Clitoria fairchildiana) and gliricidia+acacia (Gliricidia sepium and Acacia mangium). In order to determine the remaining dry matter, nutrient release (N, P, K, Ca, Mg and Mn), the decomposition constants and the half-lives times of plant residues, 100 g of fresh material were conditioned in litterbags (50 g of each species), arranged on the soil surface. The second method was done by randomly throwing a collector on each plot in the same dimensions of the litterbags (0.40 x 0.40 m) and collecting the litter. For the two methods samples were collected at 0, 30, 60, 90 and 120 days after the start of the experiment. The litterbags method showed a higher C/N ratio at day 30 up to 120 days, which implies that this method is providing a different environment from the litter, where it would be overestimating the C/N ratio and retarding the decomposition. The G+S and G+A combinations were more rapidly decomposed than the combinations of L+S and L+A. The following order of release was established for the litterbags method: P > N > K > Ca > Mn > Mg, and for the method of collecting the litter: N > P > Ca > Mg > K > Mn.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".