Soil Calcimetry Dynamics to Monitor Weathering Flux: Method Calibration in Wollastonite-Amended Croplands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Enhanced Rock Weathering (ERW) is a promising carbon dioxide removal (CDR) strategy that accelerates mineral dissolution, sequestering atmospheric CO₂ while improving soil health. This study builds on prior applications of soil calcimetry by investigating its ability to resolve short-term carbonate fluxes and rainfall-modulated weathering dynamics in wollastonite-amended croplands. Conducted over a single growing season (May–October 2024) in temperate row-crop fields near Port Colborne, Ontario—characterized by lacustrine clay soils and variable rainfall—the study tests whether calcimetry can differentiate between dissolution and precipitation phases and serve as a proxy for total weathering flux within the sentinel layer. Monthly measurements of soil pH (Milli‐Q and CaCl₂ extractions) and calcium carbonate equivalent (CCE) were collected from 10 plots. Results show significant alkalinization (p < 0.001) in both pH measures, whereas CCE exhibited high spatial and temporal variability with no consistent seasonal trend. The calcimetry‐derived weathering proxy, log (Σ ΔCCE/Δt), correlated positively with pH (r = 0.652), capturing net carbonate accumulation, while the kinetic dissolution rate model correlated strongly and negatively with pH (r ≈ −1), reflecting acid‐promoted dissolution. This divergence confirms that the two metrics capture complementary stages of the weathering–precipitation system. Rainfall exerted a strong short‐term influence on carbonate formation, with cumulative precipitation over the preceding 7–10 days showing a saturating positive effect, while dissolution fluxes were unaffected by rainfall. These findings expand calcimetry’s potential for ERW MRV, providing a direct, scalable, and dynamic measure of CO₂ sequestration in suitable climates and soils.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".