Aggregate stability after 25 years of organic, conventional, and grassland management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aggregate stability (AS) was measured in the 25th year of a long-term organic — conventional comparison field study. Located in southern Manitoba, the study includes two, four-year crop rotations under conventional and organic management, plus a grassland. The forage-grain rotation includes alfalfa (Medicago sativa)–alfalfa–wheat (Triticum aestivum)–flax (Linum usitatissimum). The grain only rotation includes wheat–flax–oat (Avena sativa)–soybean (Glycine max); hairy vetch (Vicia villosa) is substituted for soybean in the organic system. Composted manure was added every 4 yr to half of the organic forage-grain rotation to correct a phosphorus deficiency. The wheat and flax phases were sampled at depths (0–10 cm; 10–20 cm) in spring 2017, and wet aggregate stability was measured using the Yoder method with stacked sieves. Mean weight diameter (MWD) was calculated. AS in the organic systems was never lower than that of comparable conventional systems, but had more large aggregates in only a few cases. Our hypothesis that including alfalfa would increase AS was supported in only a few instances. The largest aggregates (1–2 mm and 2–6.3 mm) and the fewest smallest aggregates (0.25–0.5 mm) were observed in the grassland. For the intermediate aggregate size class (0.5–1 mm), the organic forage-grain systems had levels similar (P > 0.05) to the grassland. While adding manure increased plant growth by about 40% in the organic forage-grain rotation, no AS differences were observed. Limited AS response in the arable systems may be due to suboptimal soil C contents; only the grassland had a C content above the minimum 35 g·kg −1 postulated for Vertisols.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".