MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2992980657 · doi:10.1071/cp19018

Comparative effect of alternative fertilisers on pasture production, soil properties and soil microbial community structure

2019· article· en· W2992980657 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCrop and Pasture Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
Canadian institutionsOptech (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPastureAgronomySoil waterMonogastricEnvironmental scienceProductivitySoil pHPhosphorusRuminantPerennial plantBiologyChemistrySoil science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Different fertiliser products are commonly promoted for use on pastures in order to improve pasture productivity and support a more ‘healthy’ soil microbial environment. However, minimal field research has been conducted to validate such claims. A 6-year study (2009–14) was conducted on phosphorus (P)-deficient soils at three sites near Yass, New South Wales, to investigate the effect of topdressing perennial native-based pastures with a range of alternative fertilisers compared with single superphosphate and an unfertilised control treatment. The alternative fertiliser products included manures, composts, crushed rock, rock-phosphate-derived products, concentrated ash and microbial products. Annual measurements were made of soil chemical properties, botanical composition and pasture yield during spring and/or winter + spring, as well as the relative effectiveness of products per unit of pasture grown. Soil microbial community structure under each fertiliser treatment was also analysed in the sixth year of the study. Fertiliser products with substantial quantities of P increased extractable soil P and resulted in significantly higher pasture growth and clover content compared with the unfertilised control. Superphosphate was found to be the most P-effective fertiliser for increasing pasture growth, along with a range of other products that showed differential responses. However, the cost and P-effectiveness of the products in relation to pasture growth varied considerably and was a function of rate and frequency of application as well as amount and solubility of the P applied. Despite large differences in pasture growth across the various fertiliser treatments, there was no significant effect of the alternative fertiliser products on microbial community structure compared with either the superphosphate or unfertilised control treatments. The observed variation in bacterial, fungal and archaeal community structures across all fertiliser treatments was best explained by soil pH or aluminium (Al) concentration, which was influenced differentially by the fertiliser products. Fungal community structure was also correlated with pasture-productivity parameters (i.e. spring pasture yield, clover content and soil-available P). Our findings reveal a highly resilient soil microbial community that was influenced minimally by use of the alternative fertiliser products, thus highlighting that on-farm management decisions regarding fertiliser product choice should primarily focus on pasture response and cost-effectiveness.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.412
Threshold uncertainty score0.366

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.210 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it