Soil organic carbon data from: Soil organic carbon and root distribution in a temperate arable agroforestry system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
These data describe organic carbon content and soil bulk density measurements taken at a site in Bedfordshire, England in 2011, described in: Upson, M.A. & Burgess, P.J., 2013. Soil organic carbon and root distribution in a temperate arable agroforestry system. Plant and Soil, 373(1-2), pp.43–58. The samples were collected by Matthew Upson as part of an MSc by research at Cranfield University in 2010-2011. The field site was Olney field, Silsoe, Bedfordshire (N52°0'8.06" W0°25'46.80": http://g.co/maps/5bnxx) at the Cranfield experimental farm. Samples were taken from an agroforestry experiment described in: Burgess PJ, Incoll LD, Corry DT, Beaton A, Hart BJ (2005) Poplar (Populus spp) growth and crop yields in a silvoarable experiment at three lowland sites in England. Agrofor Syst 63:157–169 Burgess, P.J. et al., 2003. The Impact of Silvoarable Agroforestry with Poplar on Farm Profitability and Biological Diversity Final Report to DEFRA, Silsoe: Institute of Water and Environment, Cranfield University. The data comprise 10 columns describing 216 measurements of soil organic carbon content, and associated bulk density measurements. Organic carbon was measured using a modified Walkley-Black method. Two methods of presenting soil organic carbon stock measurements are presented: the first using the 'fixed depth' method of bulk density x organic carbon content; then second, using the Equivalent Soil Mass (ESM) technique explained in: Ellert, B.H. and Bettany, J.R. (1995) ‘Calculation of organic matter and nutrients stored in soils under contrasting management regimes’, Canadian Journal of Soil Science, 75(4), pp. 529–538. We used a baseline bulk density of 1 g cm-3, following: Bambrick, A.D., Whalen, J.K., Bradley, R.L., Cogliastro, A., Gordon, A.M., Olivier, A. and Thevathasan, N. V. (2010) ‘Spatial heterogeneity of soil organic carbon in tree-based intercropping systems in Quebec and Ontario, Canada’, Agroforestry Systems, 79(3), pp. 343–353. This differs slightly from the iruginal paper, in which only the fixed-depth calculation method was used. See citation for details. year: Single integer 2011 ID: Code indentifying individual trees in the experiment closest to the soil carbon measurements. e.g.: 1CB4: Block one, Cropped treatment, Beaupre hybrid, tree 4. See Upson & Burgess (2013). block: Following the original experimental design, there are three replicate blocks (B1:B3). ctrltmt: This column describes whether the sample was taken from the silvoarable agroforestry experiment (tmt), or from surrounding arable controls (ctrl). treat: Cropping treatment. Either C for continuously cropped, or F for continously Fallow. dist_m: Distance of sample from sample tree in metres. depth_cm: Depth from which the sample was taken in cm: 5, 16, 30, 50, 83, 128. di_cm: Depth of assumed sampling increment centred on the sampling depth. OCC_g_100g: Uncorrected organic carbon content as determined by a modified Walkley Black dichromate digest. Presented as grams per 100 grams. BD_g_cm3: Soil bulk density, in grams per centimetre cubed. measured using the ring method described by Klute, A. (1986) Methods of Soil Analysis: Part 1 - Physical and Mineralogical Methods. 2nd edn. Wisconsin: American Society of Agronomy. mEquiv: Assumed mass of each soil layer sampled. In this case 1 gm cm-3 * di_cm * 10^4. mMeas: Actual measured mass from measured bulk density, i.e.: BD_g_cm3 * di_cm. tC: Depth adjusted required to reach mEquiv. Calculated from ((mEquiv - mMeas) * 10-4) / BD_g_cm3 SOC_ESM_Mg_ha2: Soil organic carbon stock (Mg ha-1) calculated from the equivalent soil mass technique by: (OCC_g_100g * 0.1) * BD_g_cm3 * tC * 10^4 * 10^-3. SOC_Mg_ha2: Soil organic carbon stock (Mg ha-1) caclulated using the fixed depth method: OCC_g_100g * BD_g_cm3 di_cm.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".