Aggregate size distribution of organic soil eroded by wind
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wind erosion causes losses of organic soil in the province of Quebec's southwestern region, threatening these soils' sustainability. The aggregate size distribution of wind-eroded organic soil was determined. Wind erosion was measured during four different periods on a 1 ha plot with 32 modified Wilson and Cooke (MWAC) samplers systematically positioned in the field. The samplers captured eroded soil with aluminum cans placed at 0.10, 0.25, 0.50 and 0.85 m above the soil surface. The trapped material was collected and taken to the laboratory, where it was grouped by height and sampling period. The aggregate size distribution of the trapped material was determined by dry sieving for sizes 0.045, 0.08, 0.1, 0.1, 0.25, 0.5 and 0.84 mm. A repeated measures model was performed for the compositional data with aggregate size and bottle height as a fixed effect and measurement period as a random effect. The trapped material becomes finer as the height increases. The percentage of aggregates smaller than 0.1 mm increases with height, as opposed to the percentages of aggregates greater than or equal to 0.25 mm, which decrease with height. At 0.25, 0.5 and 0.85 m height, aggregates of size between 0.08 and 0.25 mm dominated the distribution. For material trapped at 0.1 m height, statistical tests found no evidence of differences between the means of 0.08-, 0.1-, 0.25-, and 0.84-mm aggregate sizes, although the highest percentages were 0.1- and 0.25-mm sizes. Aggregates greater than or equal to 0.84 mm were found even up to 0.85 m in height, suggesting that the wind-erodible fraction of organic soils is not equal to 0.84 mm as in mineral soils. These results demonstrate that wind erosion affects organic soils differently than mineral soils. Further research is needed to describe the effects of wind erosion on soils with high organic matter content.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 teacher head, 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".