MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2596752319 · doi:10.1139/cjss-2016-0085

Tree-based intercropping may reduce, while fertilizer nitrate may increase, soil methane emissions

2016· article· en· W2596752319 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Mathieu Gauthier, Robert L. Bradley, Sébastien F. Lange, Suzanne Allaire, William F. J. Parsons, Mario Alberto Cuellar Castillo

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Soil Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
KeywordsIntercroppingMethaneSoil waterMonocroppingEnvironmental scienceNitrateGreenhouse gasFertilizerNitrous oxideAgronomyNitrogenChemistrySoil scienceAgricultureCroppingEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tree-based intercropping (TBI) systems have shown some promise in mitigating greenhouse gas emissions, such as by sequestering carbon and decreasing soil nitrous oxide emissions. However, the effects of TBI on soil methane fluxes remain unknown. In a field study, we failed to show differences in soil CH4 production between TBI and conventional monocropping (CM) systems. Within TBI plots, however, we found significantly lower CH4 concentrations near the middle of the alleys than closer to tree rows. Soil CH4 concentrations also decreased with soil depth, even dipping below mean global atmospheric concentrations. Laboratory assays revealed a higher CH4 oxidation potential in soils collected from TBI plots compared with CM plots. These assays also revealed a decrease in CH4 oxidation potential after soils were amended with nitrate. We conclude that TBI could potentially reduce soil CH4 emissions, whereas fertilizer nitrate may increase them.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Soil Science→Same topicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics→French-language works237,207→