Effect of manipulating animal stocking rate on the carbon storage capacity in a degraded desert steppe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Managing the stocking rate is considered one of the most important practices influencing carbon storage on rangeland. The effects of four stocking rates consisting of a non‐grazed control (CK), light (0.15 sheep ha −1 month −1 ), moderate (0.30 sheep ha −1 month −1 ) and heavy (0.45 sheep ha −1 month −1 ) were evaluated for impacts on carbon storage taking place on the Desert Steppe of Inner Mongolia, China. Carbon storage was measure in aboveground vegetation, roots and soil in August of 2009, 2011 and 2013. Both aboveground biomass (AGB) and below‐ground biomass (BGB) increased significantly as stocking rate decreased. Stocking rate also had a significant effect on both the aboveground and below‐ground carbon storage in plant biomass, but had no effect on the soil carbon. Compared to the heavy stocking rate typically practiced by local herders, lower stocking rates increased the total above‐ and below‐ground biomass carbon storage by ≥ 7%. Over the 3 year study, compared to the moderate stocking rate, the rate of carbon sequestration with a light stocking rate was 0.7 Mg C ha −1 year −1 . Thus, reducing stocking rate has the potential to increase C sequestration and storage, as well as maintaining animal numbers at a more sustainable level suitable for the Desert Steppe ecosystem.
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 | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".