Impact of supplemental poultry manure application on potato yield and soil properties on a loam soil in north-western New Brunswick
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Rees, H. W., Chow, T. L., Zebarth, B., Xing, Z., Toner, P., Lavoie, J. and Daigle, J.-L. 2014. Impact of supplemental poultry manure application on potato yield and soil properties on a loam soil in north-western New Brunswick. Can. J. Soil Sci. 94: 49-65. The effect of timing of supplementary poultry manure applications on potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) yield and quality and soil properties of degraded soils in the New Brunswick potato belt were assessed. Four treatments on an 11% slope consisted of a control (11% - Ctrl) and applications of 4 Mg ha-1 of fresh broiler poultry manure applied either in late fall (11% - F), pre-planting (11% - PP) or pre-hilling (11% - PH). Similar treatments were set out on an 8% slope with exception of the pre-planting treatment. Manure applications enhanced potato plant N status as measured by petiole concentration. Over the 3-yr experiment, poultry-manured treatments averaged 13 to 17% more annual total tuber yield and 19 to 34% more annual marketable tuber yield than the unmanured control. Poultry-manured treatments had fewer tubers in the small category and increased the proportion of tubers in the No. 1 and 10 oz. categories. Tuber yields were similar with fall-applied manure and with manure applied at pre-hilling. Manure did not induce either scab or hollow heart. Manure reduced tuber specific gravity. After three annual applications of poultry manure, soil P, K, B, Cu, Na, S and Zn increased significantly. Soil organic carbon did not change significantly after three annual poultry manure applications, but there was an increase in soil CO2 concentrations, earthworm populations and infiltration. Repeated manuring did not improve saturated hydraulic conductivity, matrix bulk density, field capacity, available-water-holding capacity or wet aggregate stability, and no consistent response in soil temperature or soil water content occurred. We conclude that low, repeated applications of poultry manure would benefit tuber yield and soil biological properties, but soil physical properties would be slower to change.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".