Prairie Soils & Crops Journal Long-Term Erosion-Productivity Relationships: The Lethbridge Soil Scalping Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Soil erosion by wind or water removes valuable topsoil and decreases soil productivity. What is the value of this topsoil in terms of maintaining crop yield? When restoring eroded soils, how long do the effects of one-time applications of soil amendments last and is the magnitude or longevity of these effects influenced by the level of erosion? This study was conducted to answer these questions and ascertain the effects of simulated erosion on soil productivity and methods for its amendment. Incremental depths (0, 5, 10, 15, and 20 cm) of surface soil, or cuts, were mechanically removed to simulate erosion at two sites (one dryland, one irrigated) in southern Alberta in 1990. This approach is often referred to as ‘soil scalping’. Three amendment treatments (nitrogen + phosphorus fertilizer, 5 cm of topsoil, or 75 Mg ha-1 of feedlot manure) and a check were superimposed on each cut. The sites have been cropped annually since 1990 with no further amendments. Average grain yield reductions during the first 16 yr were 10.0 % for
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".