MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1973792655 · doi:10.1139/a04-001

Influences of global change on carbon sequestration by agricultural and forest soils

2003· article· en· W1973792655 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
O. Q. Hendrickson

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Reviews · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceCarbon sequestrationSoil carbonGreenhouse gasSoil waterCarbon cycleLand use, land-use change and forestryAtmospheric carbon cycleAgroforestryLand useEcosystemAgronomyEcologyCarbon dioxideSoil science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Global change — including warmer temperatures, higher CO 2 concentrations, increased nitrogen deposition, increased frequency of extreme weather events, and land use change — affects soil carbon inputs (plant litter), and carbon outputs (decomposition). Warmer temperatures tend to increase both plant litter inputs and decomposition rates, making the net effect on soil carbon sequestration uncertain. Rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels may be partly offset by rising soil carbon levels, but this is the subject of considerable interest, controversy, and uncertainty. Current land use changes have a net negative impact on soil carbon. Desertification and erosion associated with overgrazing and excess fuelwood harvesting, conversion of natural ecosystems into cropland and pasture land, and agricultural intensification are causing losses of soil carbon. Losses increase in proportion to the severity and duration of damage to root systems. Strategic landscape-level deployment of plants through agroforestry systems and riparian plantings may represent an efficient way to rebuild total ecosystem carbon, while also stabilizing soils and hydrologic regimes, and enhancing biodiversity. Many options exist for increasing carbon sequestration on croplands while maintaining or increasing production. These include no-till farming, additions of nitrogen fertilizers and manure, and irrigation and paddy culture. Article 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol has stimulated intense interest in accounting for land use change impacts on soil carbon stocks. Most Annex I parties are attempting to estimate the potential for increased agricultural soil carbon sequestration to partly offset their growing fossil fuel greenhouse gas emissions. However, this will require demonstrating and verifying carbon stock changes, and raises an issue of how stringent a definition of verification will be adopted by parties. Soil carbon levels and carbon sequestration potential vary widely across landscapes. Wetlands contain extremely important reservoirs of soil carbon in the form of peat. Clay and silt soils have higher carbon stocks than sandy soils, and show a greater and more prolonged response to carbon sequestration measures such as afforestation. Increased knowledge of soil organisms and their activities can improve our understanding of how soil carbon will respond to global change. New techniques using soil organic matter fractionation and stable C isotopes are also making major contributions to our understanding of this topic. Key words: climate change, carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), nitrogen, soil respiration, land use change, plant roots, afforestation, no-till.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.241
Threshold uncertainty score0.169

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations24
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental ReviewsSame topicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsFrench-language works237,207