MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6903530793 · doi:10.1139/cjss2013-0981

Influence of streambank fencing and river access for cattle on riparian zone soils adjacent to the Lower Little Bow River in southern Alberta, Canada

2014· article· en· W6903530793 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueBioOne Complete (BioOne) · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil and Water Nutrient Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFencingRiparian zoneSoil waterHydrology (agriculture)GrazingInfiltration (HVAC)Soil compactionBank

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Miller, J. J., Curtis, T., Chanasyk, D. S. and Willms, W. D. 2014. Influence of streambank fencing and river access for cattle on riparian zone soils adjacent to the Lower Little Bow River in southern Alberta, Canada. Can. J. Soil Sci. 94: 209-222. Cattle grazing in riparian pastures adjacent to rivers may increase soil compaction and increase soil nutrients, such as N and P. We conducted a 4-yr study with sampling in 3 yr (2009, 2010, 2012) of riparian zone soils adjacent to fenced and unfenced reaches of the Lower Little Bow River in southern Alberta. We examined the effect of grazing, access of cattle to the river (access versus no-access), and distance (0.25, 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 m) from the river on surface soil bulk density, volumetric water content, NH4-N, NO3, and soil test P. Penetration depth was also measured in 2012. The three grazing treatments consisted of one fenced reach (ungrazed treatment), one unfenced and grazed reach with high cattle impact (high-impact grazed treatment), and one unfenced and grazed reach with low cattle impact (low-impact grazed treatment). We hypothesized that soil compaction would be greater, soil nutrients would be enriched, and soil water content would be lower for grazed compared with ungrazed treatments, and that this same trend would occur for access compared with no-access locations. The soil properties in our study were generally significantly (P≤0.05) influenced by grazing, access, and distance from the riverbank. However, treatment effects were generally dependent on two- or three-way interactions with the other factors. Soil bulk density in 2009 and 2012 was 8 to 20% greater at access compared with no-access locations within 2 m of the riverbank, suggesting soil compaction by cattle was confined close to the wetter riverbank soils. Most soil properties generally supported our hypothesis of greater soil compaction and nutrient enrichment for unfenced compared with fenced reaches, as well as for access compared with no-access locations. The exceptions were soil water content and soil test P results that did not support the grazing hypothesis, and soil water content and NH4-N results that did not support the cattle-access hypothesis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.127
Threshold uncertainty score0.700

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.138 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioOne Complete (BioOne)Same topicSoil and Water Nutrient DynamicsFrench-language works237,207