Soil Organic Matter as Catalyst of Crop Resource Capture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The positive effect of soil organic matter (SOM) on crop yield has historically been attributed to the ability of SOM to supply crops with nitrogen and water. Whether management-induced increases in SOM meaningfully supplement water supply has received recent scrutiny, introducing uncertainty to the mechanisms by which SOM benefits crops. Here, we posit that SOM does not need to increase the supply of a growth-limiting resource to benefit crops; it only needs to facilitate root access to extant resource stocks. We highlight evidence for the ability of SOM to alleviate negative impacts of waterlogging and compaction on root development. Waterlogging restricts root aeration and, even if transient, can cause permanent downregulation of root biosynthesis. Management practices that promote SOM reduce the risk or duration of waterlogging by accelerating water infiltration, forestalling ponding, and promoting drainage. Compaction as a restriction to root development manifests in drying soils, where mechanical impedance inflates the photosynthate required to extend root tip into soil, leading to short, thick, and shallow roots. Soil organic matter reduces mechanical impedance in dry soils and is associated with root channels to the subsoil, granting crop access to deep soil water. In this framework, crop response to SOM depends on the interaction of a) crop susceptibility to waterlogging or compaction, b) soil moisture during crop maturation, and c) ‘baseline’ drainage and compaction status of soil. By exploring proposed mechanisms, future research may better constrain the context and magnitude of crop yield improvements to be expected from SOM management.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".