Grazing impacts on soil nitrogen and phosphorus under Parkland pastures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Because intensive grazing is new to the humid western Canadian parkland (prairies), there is little information available about its effects on soil N and P status. This study addressed the question of grazing intensity and pasture species effects on soil macronutrient status in a Typic Haplustoll at Lacombe, Alberta. Paddocks of smooth bromegrass (Bromus inermis Leyss.), meadow bromegrass (Bromus riparius Rhem.), and winter triticale (X Triticosecale Wittmack.), replicated 4 times, were subjected to 3 grazing intensities (heavy, medium, and light as defined by frequency and severity of defoliation) using yearling beef heifers. Nitrogen (N), P and K fertilisers were broadcast annually at 100, 22 and 42 kg ha(-1) during production years. The experiment was maintained on the same paddocks for 4 years. In the establishment year and in the third and fourth production years, soil samples were taken randomly from each paddock to a depth of 60 cm. Concentrations of nitrate-N (NO3-N), ammonium-N (NH4-N), mineral-N (the sum of NO3-N and NH4-N), total Kjeldahl-N, and extractable-P were determined in the 0-15, 15-30, 30-60, and 0-60-cm depths. Nitrate-N concentration was (1.7 to 2.4 times) greater for heavy than light grazed treatments for each soil depth increment and the amount of NO3-N in the 0-60 cm depth was 2.2 times greater than light paddocks. More NO3-N was measured under perennials than triticale (22.2 vs 13.6 mg kg(-1), respectively) at the 30-60-cm depth. Ammonium-N amount (0-60 cm) was greater in meadow bromegrass (30 kg ha(-1)) than in triticale (25 kg ha(-1)), but not smooth bromegrass paddocks for the 0-15-cm depth. Extractable-P concentration was greater in the 0-15-cm depth of heavy (154 mg kg(-1)) than in medium (138 mg kg(-1)) or light-grazed (127 mg kg(-1)) paddocks and was higher under meadow bromegrass than under triticale. Given the large amounts of NO3-N in the heavy paddocks, there is potential for loss through both leaching and denitrification. Differences among treatments for NH4-N, and P concentrations are not of particular concern environmentally, but are important from a fertility management point of view.
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) | 0.001 | 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".