MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2120354120 · doi:10.1890/11-2070.1

Nutrients and defoliation increase soil carbon inputs in grassland

2012· article· en· W2120354120 on OpenAlexaff
Carly D. Ziter, Andrew S. MacDougall

Bibliographic record

VenueEcology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNutrientAgronomyLitterGrasslandBiomass (ecology)GrazingEnvironmental sciencePlant litterSoil carbonPalatabilityCarbon sequestrationSoil organic matterOrganic matterNutrient cycleBiologySoil waterEcologyCarbon dioxide

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Given the regulatory impact of resources and consumers on plant production, decomposition, and soil carbon sequestration, anthropogenic changes to nutrient inputs and grazing have likely transformed how grasslands process atmospheric CO2. The direction and magnitude of these changes, however, remain unclear in this system, whose soils contain -20% of the world's carbon pool. Nutrients stimulate production but can also increase tissue palatability and decomposition. Grazing variously affects tissue quality and quantity, decreasing, standing biomass, but potentially increasing leaf nutrient concentrations, root production, or investment in tissue defenses that slow litter decay. Here, we quantified individual and interactive impacts of nutrient addition and simulated grazing (mowing) on above- and belowground production, tissue quality, and soil carbon inputs in a western North American grassland with globally distributed agronomic species. Given that nutrients and grazing are often connected with increased root production and higher foliar tissue quality, we hypothesized that these treatments would combine to reduce inputs of recalcitrant-rich litter critical for C storage. This hypothesis was unsupported. Nutrients and defoliation combined to significantly increase belowground production but did not affect root tissue quality. There were no significant interactions between nutrients and defoliation for any measured response. Three years of nutrient addition increased root and shoot biomass by 37% and 23%, respectively, and had no impact on decomposition, resulting in a -15% increase in soil organic matter and soil carbon. Defoliation triggered a significant burst of short-lived lignin-rich roots, presumably a compensatory response to foliar loss, which increased root litter inputs by 33%. The majority of root and shoot responses were positively correlated, with aboveground biomass a reasonable proxy for whole plant responses. The exceptions were decomposition, with roots six times more decay resistant, and grazing impacts on tissue chemistry, with shoots undergoing significant alterations, while roots were unaffected. Because neither treatment affected concentrations of decay-resistant compounds in roots, the implied net effect is higher soil C inputs with potentially longer residency times. Areas managed with nutrients and moderate grazing in our study system could thus accumulate significantly more soil C than unmanaged areas, with a greater capacity to serve as sinks for atmospheric CO2.

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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.705

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.195 · 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

Citations114
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcologySame topicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsFrench-language works237,207