Soil test phosphorus changes and phosphorus runoff losses in incubated soils treated with livestock manures and synthetic fertilizer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Kumaragamage, D., Flaten, D., Akinremi, O. O., Sawka, C. and Zvomuya, F. 2011. Soil test phosphorus changes and phosphorus runoff losses in incubated soils treated with livestock manures and synthetic fertilizer. Can. J. Soil Sci. 91: 375-384. Source of phosphorus (P) and soil properties influence changes in soil test P (STP) concentrations and P runoff losses in manured and fertilized soils. We compared STP changes and P runoff losses in two soils, a clay loam and a sand, that were either unamended (control), or amended with liquid swine manure (LSM), solid cattle manure (SCM), or monoammonium phosphate (MAP) and incubated for 6 wk. Soil subsamples after incubation were analyzed for STP using Olsen (OP), Modified Kelowna (KP), Mehlich 3 (M3P) and water extraction (WEP) methods. We collected runoff from incubated soils for 60 min under a rainfall simulator, and analyzed for dissolved reactive P (DRP). Magnitude of STP increase in amended soils was greater in sand (19-48%) than in clay loam (7-37%). Increases in STP and DRP runoff concentrations in amended soils generally followed the order; MAP>LSM>SCM. Olsen P, KP and M3P were more accurate than WEP for predicting runoff DRP concentrations and loads, accounting for 43-49% of the variation in P concentrations for the first 30 min of runoff. Olsen P, the currently used STP method for environmental P regulation in Manitoba is sufficiently robust to predict runoff P losses from manure and fertilizer amended 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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".