MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3160010891 · doi:10.1071/an20134

Sustainability of beef production from brigalow lands after cultivation and mining. 3. Pasture rundown, climate and grazing pressure effects

2021· article· en· W3160010891 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

affAu moins un auteur déclare une institution canadienne dans l'instantané OpenAlex épinglé.

Notice bibliographique

RevueAnimal Production Science · 2021
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineAgricultural and Biological Sciences
ThématiquePasture and Agricultural Systems
Établissements canadiensBarrick Gold (Canada)
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPastureGrazingContext (archaeology)ProductivityAgroforestrySustainabilityLand restorationGrazing pressureEnvironmental scienceRevegetationAgronomyGeographyLand reclamationForestryEcologyBiology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Context The Acland Land System overlying the Walloon sandstone coal deposits in southern Queensland is generally marginal for cropping but well suited to grazing, and thus cultivated land is commonly returned to pasture. Rehabilitation of these lands after open-cut coal mining seeks to be safe, stable and self-sustaining to satisfy requirements for ecologically sustainable development. Aims The present paper evaluates the sustainability and economic viability of beef production on (a) lands retired from cultivation and then rehabilitated with sown pastures after open-cut coal mining at the New Acland mine site, and (b) similar nearby pasture lands that were not mined but were also retired from cultivation. Methods The GRASP grazing systems model was modified and calibrated with short-term (5-year) grazing trial data (soil, pasture and cattle observations), and then used with long-term (60-year) weather data to estimate effects of land type, pasture rundown, climate and grazing pressure on productivity and economic returns. The productivity of three rehabilitated sites and 15 unmined sites were evaluated, including pastures on six commercial properties. Key results Estimates of long-term mean annual growth of pastures on unmined lands retired from cultivation on three land types (Mountain Coolibah, Brigalow Uplands and Poplar Box) were 3398, 2817 and 2325 kg/ha respectively. Pasture growth was greater on rehabilitated lands; 3736 kg/ha on the site most typical of rehabilitated lands and a mean of 4959 kg/ha across three sites. Seasonal conditions had large effects on cattle liveweight gain (133–213 kg/head per year during the trial); however, pasture growth was the main driver of beef production and economic returns per hectare. In GRASP, potential nitrogen uptake was used to influence key pasture growth processes and accounted for 64% of variation in observed annual growth. The short-term lift and subsequent rundown in productivity typically associated with sown pastures was estimated to have increased mean annual pasture and cattle productivity during the 2014–2018 trial period by up to 17% and 25% respectively. Estimates of long-term mean annual beef production and economic returns for the unmined lands were less than estimated for rehabilitated lands and were 139 kg/head.year (45 kg/ha.year) and AU$154/adult equivalent. Conclusions Rehabilitated lands were found to be sustainable for beef production at grazing pressures up to 30% utilisation of annual pasture growth, and comparable with grazing systems on native and sown pastures in good condition. Pastures on unmined lands retired from cultivation had reduced productivity. Implications Overgrazing is a significant and on-going residual risk to sustainable production. Grazing regimes need to continually adjust for changes in novel landscapes, pasture condition and climate. The methods used in the present study could be applied more generally.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,636
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,273

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,008
Tête enseignante GPT0,221
Écart entre enseignants0,213 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle