Assessment of biomass utilization potential of <i>Caragana korshinskii</i> and its effect on carbon sequestration on the Northern Shaanxi Loess Plateau, China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Biomass has been promoted as a promising energy resource to mitigate global climate change. To evaluate the contribution of biomass utilization to climate change mitigation under the “Grain for Green” program in Northern Shaanxi, China, a soil carbon dynamic model and a life cycle assessment model were integrated to examine the benefits of using Caragana korshinskii Kom. as an energy crop. We found that the annual dry biomass output is maintained at 0.7 Tg during the simulation period (2020–2097). Due to the compensatory effect of biomass regrowth, the global warming potential of biomass‐derived CO2 emissions is approximately 0.045; therefore, the total annual biogenic CO2 emission is 57,211 ± 6,168 Mg CO2 eq. The total annual life cycle CO2 emissions approach 867,072 Mg CO2 eq yr−1. Under the scenario of no biomass removal, final carbon storage ranges from 15.7 to 19.3 TgC, and the highest carbon sequestration rate is 0.47 TgC yr−1. In comparison with the no biomass removal scenario, the carbon sequestration rate (close to 0 MgC yr−1) in the biomass utilization scenario indicates a carbon loss; however, a portion of the carbon loss (31.39–62.09%) can be offset by carbon emission reductions from the substitution of fossil fuels.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".