MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Carbon accumulation in agricultural soils after afforestation: a meta‐analysis

2009· article· en· W1906938362 on OpenAlexafffund
Jérôme Laganière, Denis A. Angers, David Paré

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Change Biology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalNatural Resources CanadaAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaCanadian Forest Service
FundersFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les Technologies
KeywordsAfforestationEnvironmental scienceSoil carbonSoil waterCarbon sequestrationAgroforestryDeforestation (computer science)TaigaBorealAgronomySoil scienceForestryEcologyGeographyBiologyCarbon dioxide

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Deforestation usually results in significant losses of soil organic carbon (SOC). The rate and factors determining the recovery of this C pool with afforestation are still poorly understood. This paper provides a review of the influence of afforestation on SOC stocks based on a meta‐analysis of 33 recent publications (totaling 120 sites and 189 observations), with the aim of determining the factors responsible for the restoration of SOC following afforestation. Based on a mixed linear model, the meta‐analysis indicates that the main factors that contribute to restoring SOC stocks after afforestation are: previous land use, tree species planted, soil clay content, preplanting disturbance and, to a lesser extent, climatic zone. Specifically, this meta‐analysis (1) indicates that the positive impact of afforestation on SOC stocks is more pronounced in cropland soils than in pastures or natural grasslands; (2) suggests that broadleaf tree species have a greater capacity to accumulate SOC than coniferous species; (3) underscores that afforestation using pine species does not result in a net loss of the whole soil‐profile carbon stocks compared with initial values (agricultural soil) when the surface organic layer is included in the accounting; (4) demonstrates that clay‐rich soils (> 33%) have a greater capacity to accumulate SOC than soils with a lower clay content (< 33%); (5) indicates that minimizing preplanting disturbances may increase the rate at which SOC stocks are replenished; and (6) suggests that afforestation carried out in the boreal climate zone results in small SOC losses compared with other climate zones, probably because trees grow more slowly under these conditions, although this does not rule out gains over time after the conversion. This study also highlights the importance of the methodological approach used when developing the sampling design, especially the inclusion of the organic layer in the accounting.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.029
Bibliometrics0.0050.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.086
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.220 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations965
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Change BiologySame topicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsFrench-language works237,207