MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2902621796 · doi:10.1139/cjss-2018-0094

Effects of different wheat straw returning modes on soil organic carbon sequestration in a rice–wheat rotation

2018· article· en· W2902621796 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Naijuan Hu, Hang Shi, Baojun Wang, Zehai Gu

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Soil Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersScience Foundation of Ministry of Education of ChinaMinistry of Education of the People's Republic of China
KeywordsStrawCarbon sequestrationAgronomySoil carbonRotation systemDitchPloughTillageEnvironmental scienceBiomass (ecology)Total organic carbonSoil waterChemistryCarbon dioxideNitrogenSoil scienceEnvironmental chemistryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Straw ditch-buried returning is a new straw returning mode; however, the different effect of straw ditch-buried returning and frequently used straw returning modes on soil organic carbon (SOC) sequestration is still unclear. A 2 yr field experiment was conducted and four treatments (CK: no straw returning; WR: wheat straw returning with rotary tillage; WP: wheat straw returning with plowing; WD: wheat straw ditch-buried returning) were set to assess the effects on SOC fractions and sequestration in rice–wheat rotation. Results indicated that WD had significantly higher total organic carbon than did WP and CK in wheat season. Soil dissolved organic carbon and easily oxidizable carbon contents were significantly increased by 21.3%, 24.3%, 38.6%, and 43.5% under WR than that under CK in rice and wheat seasons, respectively. Soil microbial biomass carbon (MBC) content was highest under WP in rice season, but in wheat season, WR had significantly higher MBC than WP and WD. Soil carbon pool management index was significantly higher in WR than CK, with the increase of 41.0% and 108.6%. After 2 yr rotation, WD had a significant higher SOC stock and sequestration than WP. Therefore, WD could be an available mode to increase SOC sequestration in rice–wheat rotation system.

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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations11
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Soil ScienceSame topicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsFrench-language works237,207