MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3006744032 · doi:10.1111/ejss.12949

Tillage and cropping effects on soil organic carbon: Biodegradation and storage in density and size fractions

2020· article· en· W3006744032 on OpenAlexaff
Yan Zhang, Xiujun Li, E. G. Gregorich, Neil B. McLaughlin, Xiaoping Zhang, Yafei Guo, Yan Gao, Aizhen Liang

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Soil Science · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersNortheast Institute of Geography and Agroecology, Chinese Academy of SciencesPeople's Government of Jilin ProvinceChinese Academy of SciencesNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsTillagePloughSoil carbonMineralization (soil science)Conventional tillageTotal organic carbonMonocultureAgronomyChemistrySoil waterBiodegradationSiltCropping systemBulk densityEnvironmental scienceSoil scienceEnvironmental chemistryGeologyCropBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Improvements in management practices can prevent the decline of soil organic carbon (SOC) storage caused by conventional tillage practice in Northeast China. Density and size fractionation can track the transformation of plant residue into SOC and its location in the soil matrix. We used a long‐term field study in China to evaluate these changes as a result of improved management involving tillage and cropping systems. Experimental treatments included no‐till (NT) and mouldboard ploughing (MP) under monoculture maize ( Zea mays L.) (MM) and maize‐soybean ( Glycine max Merr.) rotation (MS); these were compared to the traditional management involving conventional tillage (CT) under MM. An incubation study was conducted to evaluate mineralization and the biodegradability of SOC. The soils were also physically fractionated by density (light fraction, LF) and size (sand, silt and clay). With improved management, the SOC storage in the clay size fraction showed the largest increase across all fractions. This increase was greater for MS than MM. The NTMS treatment resulted in a decline in silt‐OC storage compared to CTMM. The SOC mineralization (mg CO 2 ‐C g −1 soil) was affected by tillage and driven by LF‐OC and was observed in the order: NTMM (2.06) > MPMM (1.72) ≈ NTMS (1.71) > CTMM (1.52) ≈ MPMS (1.41). Both cropping and depth affected the biodegradability of SOC. Considering the plough layer (0–20 cm), treatments under MM had a larger proportion of biodegradable SOC than those under MS. We conclude that the significant differences in SOC storage in physical fractions and SOC biodegradation were caused by differences in soil management. Highlights Clay size fraction showed the largest increase in SOC storage when residue was returned. Silt size fraction lost SOC in no‐till maize‐soybean compared with traditional farming practice. Potential SOC mineralization depended on quantity of SOC in the LF. Biodegradability of the SOC was driven by cropping system not tillage.

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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.188 · 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

Citations22
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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