Influence of tillage practice on carbon sequestration is scale-dependent
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While the influence of management practices on soil organic C (OC) concentration and mass has been evaluated for the surface layer of small plots of homogeneous soils, there are few studies at a scale inclusive of the entire solum and heterogeneous soils. The objective of this study was to test for an interaction between tillage practice [no-till (NT) vs. conventional tillage (CT) by chisel-plow] and topography as determinants of OC stocks in the entire solum and layers thereof at a field-scale. Adjacent fields of contrasting tillage practice were stratified by soil series and drainage class for comparison. The effect of tillage practice on OC mass was contingent on slope position and sampling depth, i.e., scale-dependent. There was more OC in the surface layer (0–8 cm) of the A horizon of the NT than the CT field at well-drained upper slope positions, but not at imperfectly drained lower slope positions. At lower slope positions there was more OC in the entire A horizon of the CT than the NT field. Results of small-plot studies with homogeneous soils cannot be extrapolated arbitrarily to larger scales. Rather, assessments at larger scales that encompass heterogeneous soils are required. Key words: Carbon sequestration, soil series, tillage, topography
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".