MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399159980 · doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.121249

Effects on soil carbon storage from municipal biosolids application to agricultural fields

2024· article· en· W4399159980 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Zheya Lin, G.W. Price, Chang Liang, David L. Burton, Derek H. Lynch

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Management · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaDalhousie University
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
KeywordsBiosolidsEnvironmental scienceAgricultureCarbon fibersWaste managementEnvironmental protectionSoil carbonEnvironmental engineeringSoil waterEngineeringSoil scienceGeographyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigated the influence of biosolid applications on soil carbon storage and evaluated nutrient management strategies affecting soil carbon dynamics. The research assessed alterations in soil pH, soil carbon stock, and soil nitrogen content within short-term and long-term biosolids-amended soils in Bible Hill, Nova Scotia, Canada, extending to a depth of 0–60 cm. The findings indicated an increase in soil pH with alkaline treatment biosolids (ATB) applications across both study sites, with a legacy effect on soil pH noted in the long-term biosolids-amended soil following a single ATB application over 13 years. Both sites demonstrated significant increases in soil total carbon (STC) and soil organic carbon (SOC) within the 0–30 cm soil depth after biosolid application, and soil inorganic carbon (SIC) accounted for approximately 5–10% of STC, specifically in the surface soil layer (0–15 cm). In the long-term study site, annual 14, 28 and 42 Mg ATB ha−1 treatments resulted in a substantial rise in soil carbon stock (59.5, 60.1 and 68.0 Mg C ha−1), marking a 25% increase compared to control soil. The SOC content in biosolids-amended soil showed a declining trend with increasing soil depth at both study sites. Notably, the carbon stock in the short-term site was observed in composted biosolids (COMP) > ATB > liquid mesophilic anaerobically digested biosolids (LMAD) from the 0–60 cm soil depth. Approximately 79–80% of the variation in SOC response at both sites was concentrated within the top 30 cm soil. Soil total nitrogen (STN) showed no significant differences at the short-term site, and STN in biosolids-amended soil decreased with increasing soil depth at the long-term site. Biosolids-induced C retention coefficients (BCR) for ATB remained consistent at both sites, ranging from −13% to 31.4% with a mean of 11.12%. BCR values for COMP ranged from 1.9% to 34.4% with a mean of 18.73%, while those for LMAD exhibited variability, spanning from −6.2% to 106.3% with a mean of 53.9%.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.172
Threshold uncertainty score0.341

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.187
Teacher spread0.182 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental ManagementSame topicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsFrench-language works237,207