Exploring soil amendment strategies with polyacrylamide to improve soil health and oat productivity in a dryland farming ecosystem: One‐time versus repeated annual application
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Degraded lands resulting from human and natural causes are widespread in arid and semiarid regions throughout the world. Polyacrylamide (PAM) soil amendments are increasingly used to remediate these degraded lands with the potential benefits on soil health and crop production. However, the scientific evidence of farm‐scale use of one‐time versus repeated application of PAM has not been reported. The specific objective of this research was to determine the effects of single versus multiple annual PAM application on (a) the dynamic changes in soil quality parameters and (b) oat crop productivity indicators in a dryland farming ecosystem. Our data illustrated that multiple years of annual application of PAM significantly increased soil profile water storage, whereas it reduced soil bulk density and electrical conductivity in the top (0–20 cm) and deeper layers (20–60 cm) over those for the control or single PAM application. The improved soil microecological environments led to increased activities of soil enzymes urease (up to 106%), invertase (94%), and catalase (45%). These in turn promoted soil nutrient turnover and availability (e.g., 76% higher soil alkaline N) and crop growth leading to the improvement in grain protein (up to 31%), protein yield (58%), and partial factor productivity of nitrogen (20%), than did the control treatment. Taken together, these soil and crop performance indicators suggest that repeated annual PAM application for a minimum of 2–3 years would be an effective strategy to combat drought and land degradation and foster sustainable crop production in dryland agriculture under a changing climate scenario.
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 | 0.001 | 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".