Soil Health Assessment of Two Regenerative Farming Practices on Sandy Soils
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The addition of organic amendments and cover cropping on sandy soils are regenerative farming practices that can potentially enhance soil health. South Florida mineral soils present low soil quality due to their sandy texture and low organic matter (OM) content. Few studies have focused on evaluating the effects of farm-based management regenerative practices in this region. The objective of this study was to evaluate changes in soil properties associated with two regenerative farming practices - horse bedding application in combination with cover cropping (cowpea, Vigna unguiculata), compared to the practice of cover cropping only for two years. The soil quality indicators that were tested included soil pH, bulk density, water holding capacity, cation exchange capacity, OM, active carbon, soil protein and major nutrients (N, P, K). Results indicated no significant changes in soil pH, but a significant reduction in soil bulk density and a significant increase in maximum water holding capacity for both practices. Cation exchange capacity and the amounts of active carbon increased significantly after 1.5-year of the farming practices. Horse bedding application with cover cropping showed a significant 4% increase in OM during a short period. A significant increase in plant-available P was also observed under these two practices. Based on this study, horse bedding application as an organic amendment in conjunction with cover cropping provides an enhanced soil health effect compared to just cover cropping. As local growers explore farming option to improve soil health particularly during the fallow period using regenerative farming practices on sandy soils, these results will assist in their decision making.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".