Accumulation and redistribution of residual chloride, nitrate, and soil test phosphorus in soil profiles amended with fresh and composted cattle manure containing straw or wood-chip bedding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Miller, J. J., Beasley, B. W., Drury, C. F. and Zebarth, B. J. 2011. Accumulation and redistribution of residual chloride, nitrate, and soil test phosphorus in soil profiles amended with fresh and composted cattle manure containing straw or wood-chip bedding. Can. J. Soil Sci. 91: 969-984. Limited research has compared the effect of fresh versus composted beef (Bos taurus) cattle feedlot manure containing straw or wood chips on accumulation and redistribution of residual chloride (Cl), NO3-N, and soil test P (STP) in soil profiles of the Great Plains region of North America. Barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) was grown (1999-2007) on an irrigated clay loam soil in southern Alberta where organic amendments and fertilizer were annually applied for 9 yr from 1998 to 2006. The field experiment was a factorial arrangement of two manure types (fresh versus composted feedlot manure), two bedding materials (straw versus wood-chips), and three application rates (13, 39, 77 Mg ha-1 dry wt). There was also one inorganic (IN) fertilizer treatment and an unamended control. The soil profile (0-1.5 m) was sampled in the fall of 1999 to 2002, 2004, 2006, and 2007 and analyzed for residual soil NO3-N, Cl, and STP. Manure type had a significant (P≤0.05) effect on the accumulation of these chemicals, but there was an interaction with application rate (NO3-N), or with bedding and year (STP). The maximum accumulation of Cl after 9 yr was at the 0.6 to 0.9 m depth, but mean values at this depth were similar for the four organic amendments. The maximum accumulation of NO3-N after 9 yr (2007) was at the 0.3 to 0.6 m depth, and mean values at this depth were significantly greater by four- to sixfold for FM and CM with straw than wood-chips, which suggested greater N immobilization in soils with wood. Redistribution of Cl and NO3-N downward into the soil profile suggested a potential for leaching of these chemicals below the root zone. In contrast, soil test P did not accumulate below the 0.3 m depth, suggesting little potential for leaching. However, accumulation of soil test P at this depth was generally greater for the amendment treatments compared with inorganic fertilizer and was likely related to greater P applied in the amendments.
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 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".