Responses of Soil Microbial Activity to Swine Manure Applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The allocation of the large amount of swine waste from farms is an international concern. An efficient way of managing such waste is its use in farming. It is already known that the incorporation of organic waste into the soil significantly increases the microbial population. Therefore, the objective was to evaluate the impact of the use of swine manure on the soil microbiota in a Eutrophic Oxisol. The experiment was set up in a completely randomized design in a 6 × 4 factorial scheme (sixconcentrations of swine manure and four evaluation periods) with four replications. We evaluate the following characteristics: microbial respiration (C-CO2), microbial biomass (µC g-1 soil) and pH.: microbial respiration (C-CO2), microbial biomass (µC g-1 soil) and pH. A significant effect was found in the interaction between concentrations and time of incubation (p < 0.05) of swine manure on microbial activity in the soil. The amount of microbial carbon increased as a function of increased levels of liquid swine manure. No interaction was observed between concentrations and time of incubation for the pH. The evaluation of the isolated factors allowed to observe that the pH decreased as the doses of manure were incremented. Higher and lower pH values were found after 5 and 30 days of incubation. The application of liquid swine manure up to 6000 L ha-1 increases the release of CO2 and carbon in the microbial biomass. The applications of liquid swine manure cause a gradual reduction in soil pH.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".