Implementation of Silvopastoral Systems under Nutrient Cycling in Secondary Vegetation in the Amazon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Silvopastoral systems can be implemented in idle secondary forests; however, they may affect nutrient cycling in these ecosystems. This farming practice using babassu palms (Attalea speciosa Mart.) and Mombasa grass (Panicum maximum Jacq.) has been little studied, and the nutrient cycling occurred during this practice is yet unknown. The goal of this paper was to detect the leaf litter accumulation, decomposition, and nutrient release occurring in silvopastoral systems in a babassu secondary forest, and compared the results with those of a native forest and of a pasture grown under full sunlight. The data relating to deposition, chemical composition, decomposition, and macronutrient release of leaf litter and pasture litter were evaluated by multivariate analyses. The results showed that forest thinning reduced leaf litter deposition and overall nutrient cycling but had no effect on decomposition rates. Conversely, the presence of grass in the understory promoted increased overall nutrient cycling rates. The cycling in integrated systems occurs more similar to that of forests than that of monocultures. The greater the thinning intensity the more similar the cycling will be relative to that occurring in pastures and in monocultures. The nutrients Ca, Mg, and N were the most affected by thinning. Moreover, the presence of grass in integrated systems provided an increased N and Mg cycling, whereas the thinning reduced Ca cycling. K showed the highest release and return ratio to the soil. Lastly, leaf litter from pasture areas showed higher contents of nutrients, decomposition rates, as well as an enhanced nutrient cycling capacity.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".