MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2529037269 · doi:10.1139/cjss-2015-0122

Carbon sequestration potential of cropland reforestation on the northern slope of the Tianshan Mountains

2016· article· en· W2529037269 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Li Lü, Yapeng Chang, Xiaofei Li, Xuewei Qiao, Qinghui Luo, Zeyuan Xu, Zhonglin Xu

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Soil Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReforestationEnvironmental scienceCarbon sequestrationSoil carbonBiomass (ecology)ForestryContext (archaeology)AfforestationLand useSoil waterAgroforestryHydrology (agriculture)Soil scienceGeographyAgronomyCarbon dioxideEcologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effect of land-use changes on soil carbon stocks has been an increasing concern in the context of global climate change. Through natural reforestation programs, abandoned cropland holds the potential of sequestering soil organic carbon (SOC) if the original forest could be recovered. In this study, we initially delineated the potential distribution of forest species on the north slope of the Tianshan Mountains using species distribution models. We then estimated the corresponding sequestration potential of SOC in the area delineated for reforestation. The deforestated area of a Picea schrenkiana forest converted to cropland (PSC) was defined by the potential and actual distributions of forest and cropland. The SOC contents of the forest and cropland soils were obtained through field sampling and laboratory analysis. We found that the area of the PSC was 26.77 × 105 ha, and the SOC loss (per unit area) derived from the conversion of forestland to cropland was 171.70 ± 28.20 Mg ha−1. The total SOC loss from the study area was 459.70 ± 75.49 Tg. This result implies that continuing the reforestation programs being implemented in the study area would increase SOC by the same amount. Additionally, we also estimated the total amount of carbon that would be sequestered in the aboveground and underground forest biomass on former cropland.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.188 · 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 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

Citations7
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Soil ScienceSame topicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesFrench-language works237,207