MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406207366 · doi:10.1139/cjss-2024-0062

Review of research studies on nitrous oxide emissions from manure-amended soils in Canada from 1990 to 2023

2025· article· en· W4406207366 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Chih‐Yu Hung, David E. Pelster, Brian Grant, Ward Smith, Andrew VanderZaag

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Soil Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture, Soil, Plant Science
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNitrous oxideManureSoil waterEnvironmental scienceGreenhouse gasEnvironmental chemistryAgronomyEnvironmental protectionChemistrySoil scienceEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nitrous oxide (N 2 O) emissions from manure-amended soils are estimated to be 1525 kt CO 2 e in Canada. The accuracy of this estimate is dependent on emission measurements. However, obtaining accurate measurements is challenging due to the variable distribution of livestock types, climates, soils, and management across Canada. This study compares research studies on the temporal and spatial distribution of N 2 O emissions from land applied manure with emission estimates from the National Inventory Reports to evaluate how research aligns with key factors driving emissions. Overall, 122 articles were identified, including 31 incubation, 57 soil chamber, and 8 micrometeorological studies (the rest were modelling). Although 51 (42%) of the articles were based in Ontario and Quebec, this region still warrants more attention, because its high livestock population and humid climate results in 68.7% of Canada's N 2 O emissions from manure-amended soil. Dairy manure was most common with 55 studies, followed by swine (36) and beef (29). Emissions from beef manure applications are notably lacking in Quebec, while dairy and swine studies were reasonably aligned with provincial emissions. The underutilization of micrometeorological methods creates a significant gap in determining annual emissions. Increasing research focus on year-round and non-growing seasons would improve estimates. Additional studies using solid manure and/or a wider range of soil textures would strengthen the national emission estimate, which currently relies mostly on research involving liquid manure and medium-textured soils. Further research is needed to fill the identified gaps; specifically, high-resolution measurements, considering local livestock industries, and soil textures in humid climates.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.410
Threshold uncertainty score0.824

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0230.034
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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