Chemical fumigation alters soil carbon and nitrogen dynamics in soils amended with substrates of contrasting carbon availability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chemical fumigation is used to reduce soil-borne diseases in agricultural production systems; however, soil carbon (C) and nitrogen (N) dynamics may also be affected. This study investigated the effects of chemical fumigation and substrate C availability on soil respiration, soil nitrous oxide (N2O) production, and soil inorganic N concentrations under controlled conditions over 128 days. This study consisted of a 3 × 3 factorial arrangement of three fumigant treatments (fumigation with chloropicrin, metam sodium, or no fumigation) and three soil amendment treatments (amendment with young barley, mature barley, or no amendment). In soils amended with young barley, chemical fumigation delayed the maximum rate of soil respiration and N2O production by five days compared to the amended non-fumigated soil. Additionally, chloropicrin fumigation decreased cumulative soil respiration in amended soils, regardless of substrate C availability, compared to non-fumigated soil. Chemical fumigation used alone or combined with young barley amendments significantly inhibited nitrification compared to non-fumigated soil, whereas amendment with mature barley resulted in N immobilization, regardless of chemical fumigation. This study demonstrated that chemical fumigation significantly affected soil C and N dynamics in soils amended with high and low available C substrates, indicating decreased microbial activity and significant implications for soil function.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 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".