Grazing impacts on selected soil parameters under short-term forage sequences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Long-term cultivation is known to change soil physical and chemical properties, but little is known about whether short-term agricultural practices, such as rotational grazing, can initiate such changes. This study investigated the impacts of 3 grazing intensities (heavy, medium, and light) and 4 forages on selected soil physical and chemical parameters of a Typic Haplustoll at Lacombe, Alberta. Measurements were conducted on soil samples collected at the beginning (1993) and the end (1996) of the study. Two perennial forages, smooth bromegrass (Bromus inermis cv. 'Carlton') and meadow bromegrass (Bromus riparius cv. 'Paddock'), and 2 annuals, a mixture of triticale (X Triticosecale Wittmack cv. 'Pika') and barley (Hordeum vulgare L. cv. 'AC Lacombe') and triticale alone were used for the study. Grazing intensity or forage species did not affect carbon-to-nitrogen ratio. Grazing intensity influenced changes in available water holding capacity for the 0-5 cm interval, soil nitrogen for the 30-45 cm interval, soil pH for the 5-15 cm interval and electrical conductivity for all depth intervals except for the 0-5 cm interval (P less than or equal to 0.05). Forage species affected changes in soil carbon in the 0-5 cm interval, soil pH between 0 and 15 cm, and electrical conductivity between 5 and 45 cm (P less than or equal to 0.05). Soil electrical conductivities for all grazing levels and forage treatments were within the range (i.e. 0-2 dS m-1) considered to have negligible effects on plant growth. The minimal effects of grazing and plant species on soil parameters in this study may have been due to the resilient intrinsic properties of the soil and/or the short study length.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".