MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2952638721 · doi:10.2134/jeq2019.03.0119

Impacts of Cover Crops and Crop Residues on Phosphorus Losses in Cold Climates: A Review

2019· review· en· W2952638721 on OpenAlexaff
Jian Liu, Merrin L. Macrae, Jane A. Elliott, Helen M. Baulch, Henry F. Wilson, Peter J. A. Kleinman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Quality · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil and Water Nutrient Dynamics
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaUniversity of WaterlooGlobal Institute for Water SecurityUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSurface runoffCover cropEnvironmental scienceAgronomyCrop residueLeaching (pedology)CropSoil waterNutrientDrainageHydrology (agriculture)AgricultureAgroforestryBiologySoil scienceEcologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of cover crops and crop residues is a common strategy to mitigate sediment and nutrient losses from land to water. In cold climates, elevated dissolved P losses can occur associated with freeze–thaw of plant materials. Here, we review the impacts of cover crops and crop residues on dissolved P and total P loss in cold climates across ∼41 studies, exploring linkages between water‐extractable P (WEP) in plant materials and P loss in surface runoff and subsurface drainage. Water‐extractable P concentrations are influenced by plant type and freezing regimes. For example, WEP was greater in brassica cover crops than in non‐brassicas, and increased with repeated freeze–thaw cycles. However, total P losses in surface runoff and subsurface drainage from cropped fields under cold climates were much lower than plant WEP, owing to retention of 45 to >99% of released P by soil. In cold climatic regions, cover crops and crop residues generally prevented soil erosion and loss of particle‐bound P during nongrowing seasons in erodible landscapes but tended to elevate dissolved P loss in nonerodible soils. Their impact on total P loss was inconsistent across studies and complicated by soil, climate, and management factors. More research is needed to understand interactions between these factors and plant type that influence P loss, and to improve the assessment of crop contributions to P loss in field settings in cold climates. Further, tradeoffs between P loss and the control of sediment loss and N leaching by plants should be acknowledged. Core Ideas Winter crop covers reduce soil erosion but may enhance dissolved P loss under cold climates. In cold climates, freeze–thaw cycles increase dissolved P release from plants and soils. Plant water‐extractable P varies with crop species, hardiness, and freeze regimes. Phosphorus losses in runoff and leaching are complicated by soil, hydrology, and management. Assessment of crop impacts on P loss should consider tradeoffs and future climates.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations107
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental QualitySame topicSoil and Water Nutrient DynamicsFrench-language works237,207