Nutrient Cycling and Soil Health in Organic Cropping Systems - Importance of Management Strategies and Soil Resilience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Organic field crop systems are characterized by complex rotations with high spatial and temporal vegetative diversity, an enhanced use of legumes, and reduced external nutrient (nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P)) use. At the same time, a core premise of certified organic agriculture is that this farming system provides benefits to soil health via enhanced microbial diversity. The following short review, drawing primarily upon selected studies from North America, examines the impact of farming systems, and various management strategies within these, on soil organic matter, N and P dynamics, and soil microbial and macrofaunal abundance and diversity. Organic cropping systems are shown to provide benefits with respect to reduced farm N and P surpluses, in combination with maintenance of soil organic matter and improved soil health. However, soil health benefits appear consistently achieved only for larger soil organisms partly due to the resilience of the soil microbial community. Recent research examining soil P dynamics and P uptake in relation to legume biological N2 fixation and bacterial and mycorrhizal community diversity provide evidence of the resilience of the soil microbial community with respect to functionality, if not diversity of microbial community composition. These latter results may challenge organic agriculture core premises of consistent benefits to soil health via enhanced microbial diversity, but in its place may lead to an improved understanding of how specific cropping practices and production system intensity overall, rather than farming system per se, influences both nutrient cycling and soil ecosystem functioning.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".