Tropical pasture carbon cycling: relationships between C source/sink strength, above‐ground biomass and grazing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We measured net ecosystem CO2 exchange (NEE) in Panamá over C4 pasture plots that varied in grazing intensity. After adjusting for variation in light, there were noticeable effects of grazing‐related variables on CO2 exchange that were largely dependent on the developmental stage of the plant canopy. Above‐ground productivity was positively related to grazing intensity (r2=0.30). Two experimentally grazed fields had significantly lower standing crop biomass but no significant difference in CO2 uptake (24.2 μmol/m2/s) compared with two ungrazed fields (20.3 μmol/m2/s). Grazed fields had significantly lower ecosystem respiration rates (10.3 μmol/m2/s) than did ungrazed fields (17.6 μmol/m2/s). These results suggest that, although these pastures were possible sources of CO2 during the time intervals sampled, the size of the sources tended to be dampened by cattle grazing through reductions in ecosystem respiration. Thus, it appears that disturbance caused by cattle grazing will not always result in an increase in CO2 release from tropical pastures to the atmosphere.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".