Long-term grazing effects on grassland soil properties in southern British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evans, C. R. W., Krzic, M., Broersma, K. and Thompson, D. J. 2012. Long-term grazing effects on grassland soil properties in southern British Columbia. Can. J. Soil Sci. 92: 685-693. Although grazing effects on soil properties have been evaluated on various temperate grasslands, no study has dealt with these effects in the southern interior of British Columbia. The objective of this study was to determine the effects of spring versus fall season grazing as well as grazing [at a moderate rate of 0.6 animal unit months (AUM) ha-1] versus non-grazing by beef cattle on selected soil properties. Effects were determined 20 and 30 yr after the establishment of the field experiment. Soil properties were determined for the 0- to 7.5-cm, 7.5- to 15-cm, and 15- to 30-cm depths. In comparison with fall grazing, spring grazing had greater soil bulk density, greater mechanical resistance within the top 15 cm of the soil profile, higher pH, and lower polysaccharides. This was true for both 20 and 30 yr of treatment. Grazing effects on aggregate stability were observed only after 30 yr with spring grazing leading to a more stable structure with a mean weight diameter (MWD) of 1.5 mm and 32% and 10% of aggregates in the 2- to 6-mm and 1- to 2-mm size fractions, respectively, compared with a MWD of 1.0 mm and 20% and 6% under fall grazing. Greater soil bulk density, mechanical resistance, and pH were observed under the grazed treatment relative to the control without grazing, but as we used a moderate stocking rate the impacts were not as great as in previous studies, which used heavy stocking rates. Our findings show that long-term grazing at a moderate stocking rate of 0.6 AUM ha-1 did not have critical detrimental effects on soil properties as some land managers and ranchers have suggested.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".