Effects of liming on soil physical and chemical properties in Europe and North America: A review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Soil acidity is one of the major constraints limiting crop production worldwide. About 50% of the global arable land is acidic. Liming remains an effective strategy for soil acidity amelioration and improvement of soil fertility. The objective of this review was to summarize information on liming effects on soil physical and chemical properties in the North American and European contexts. We reviewed how different lime products influence soil pH and various soil processes that contribute to soil physical and chemical health. Our findings were that, when applied at appropriate rates, liming materials generally increased soil pH, cation exchange capacity (CEC), exchangeable calcium and magnesium, nutrient availability and reduced toxicities of aluminum (Al), manganese (Mn), and heavy metals. Many studies showed that liming modifies soil properties and processes both in the short‐ and long‐term. While most studies reported improvements in nutrient availability, there were some differences in liming impacts on phosphorus (P) and potassium (K), mostly due to differences in soil type and composition. Liming improves structural properties including aggregate stability, soil friability, porosity, and water infiltration. Knowledge about liming impacts on soil physical and chemical properties is essential for optimizing liming rates to enhance soil health and improve productivity. Future studies should explore liming effects on CEC, associations of P and K with cations supplied by liming (e.g., Ca 2+ ), and use of some waste materials as lime alternatives.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it