Effect of manure application on soil microbial activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Soils from field trials treated with hog and cattle manure in spring of 1997 were sampled in the fall after harvest and soil microbial activity assessed. CO2 evolution measurements indicated that 6 months after addition, hog and cattle manure had little influence on measured microbial activity. In contrast, manure additions greatly stimulated soil microbial activity immediately after application when manure was freshly applied to the soils in the laboratory. For example, the highest level of microbial activity was observed at 3 days after treating the soil in the lab with 400 kg N-ha-l of cattle or hog manure. These initial results indicate that time of sampling is critical when assessing the effect of manure on soil microorganisms, with measurements required immediately after application as well as at longer time intervals. The fresh application of manure stimulated microbial activity by lo-fold compared to that measured in samples taken 6 months after application. However, microbial activity decreased with time and amounts of C evolved leveled out at about 20 p.g Cg-l soil after 38 days, similar to activity observed in the samples after 6 months. Preliminary results on the effects of manure application on the incidence of soil entero-pathogens (fecal coliforms) and wheat root rot incidence are discussed.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".