Impact of leonardite amendments on soil physical properties of two soils related to grain production
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the major constraints to crop productivity is soil structure. A soil with good structure will have an optimum balance of pores conducive to infiltration, aeration and water retention. Soil structure can be changed with amendments and field management. The objectives of this thesis were: (1) to evaluate the effectiveness of leonardite amendment application on improving soil structure; (2) to determine whether leonardite application has the ability to improve crop productivity. The evidence obtained suggests that the given forms of leonardite (an oxidized lignite) were ineffective in improving soil structure and crop productivity. Upon initial field application, the hydrophobic nature of the material was realized. This water repellency was carried over to the second field season. Leonardite was ineffective in altering soil porosity, soil strength, and water stable aggregation following one field season. Residual treatment effects evaluated following the next growth season showed there were no significant differences. Crop yield was also not affected by field applied leonardite. Due to the hydrophobic nature of the leonardite, it was suspected that there were little to no active functional groups on the surface of the leonardite. This was suspected to be the reason that leonardite was ineffective in altering soil structure. An incubation study using a soluble powder form of leonardite resulted in no treatment effect on aggregate stability or crop productivity. The incubation study revealed an increase in the organic carbon content of the soil with increasing leonardite application. The chemical alteration of leonardite to a soluble form appeared to be ineffective in increasing the quantity of surface active functional groups involved on soil aggregation.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".