Soil compaction under varying rest periods and levels of mechanical disturbance in a rotational grazing system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Halde, C., Hammermeister, A. M., McLean, N. L., Webb, K. T. and Martin, R. C. 2011. Soil compaction under varying rest periods and levels of mechanical disturbance in a rotational grazing system. Can. J. Soil Sci. 91: 957-964. In Atlantic Canada, data are limited regarding the effect of grazing systems on soil compaction. The objective of the study was to determine the effect of intensive and extensive rotational pasture management treatments on soil bulk density, soil penetration resistance, forage productivity and litter accumulation. The study was conducted on a fine sandy loam pasture in Truro, Nova Scotia. Each of the eight paddocks was divided into three rotational pasture management treatments: intensive, semi-intensive and extensive. Mowing and clipping were more frequent in the intensive than in the semi-intensive treatment. In the extensive treatment, by virtue of grazing in alternate rotations, the rest period was doubled than that of the intensive and semi-intensive treatments. Both soil bulk density (0-5 cm) and penetration resistance (0-25.5 cm) were significantly higher in the intensive treatment than in the extensive treatment, for all seasons. Over winter, bulk density decreased significantly by 6.8 and 3.8% at 0-5 and 5-10 cm, respectively. A decrease ranging between 40.5 and 4.0% was observed for soil penetration resistance over winter, at 0-1.5 cm and 24.0-25.5 cm, respectively. The intensive and semi-intensive treatments produced significantly more available forage for grazers annually than the extensive treatment. Forage yields in late May to early June were negatively correlated with spring bulk density.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".