MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400269091 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2023-0288

Effect of 3-year amendment measures on coastal saline–alkali soil conditions during the growing season

2024· article· en· W4400269091 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Zhaohui Jia, Lingjun Zhu, Jing Liu, Jingyi Zeng, Shilin Ma, Chong Li, Yingkang Wu, Huimei Leng, Xin Liu, Jinchi Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture, Soil, Plant Science
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmendmentGrowing seasonEnvironmental scienceAgronomySoil salinityBiologySoil waterSoil science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Seawater intrusion and fluctuations in the water table in coastal areas lead to seasonal variations in soil salinity and pH, which greatly limit the development of coastal protection forests. In a 3-year field study, the impact of five soil amendment measures were evaluated on soil conditions in coastal areas. Amendments included biochar, biochar with arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF), straw with AMF, straw alone, and AMF alone, compared to a control (CK) with no additive. Results indicated that combinations of straw, biochar, and AMF reduced soil pH across various layers and seasons, with electrical conductivity mainly decreasing in spring. During the summer, at the 0–20 cm soil depth, microbial biomass carbon notably increased due to these mixtures. Additionally, AMF alone and biochar with AMF significantly improved enzyme activities in the 0–40 cm layer in spring, while in fall, AMF alone notably increased nutrient availability in the same layer. Linear regression analysis revealed a negative correlation between electrical conductivity, microbial biomass carbon, enzyme activity, and nutrient availability with pH. The biochar–AMF mixture emerged as the most effective soil amendment, suggesting that using it in conjunction with seasonal management could optimize soil health and promote silviculture in coastal regions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.283
Threshold uncertainty score0.918

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicAgriculture, Soil, Plant ScienceFrench-language works237,207