Estimating soil organic carbon redistribution in three major river basins of China based on erosion processes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Soil erosion by water affects soil organic carbon (SOC) migration and distribution, which are important processes for defining ecosystem carbon sources and sinks. Little has been done to quantify soil carbon erosion in the three major basins in China, the Yangtze River, Yellow River and Pearl River Basins, which contain the most eroded areas. This research attempts to quantify the lateral movement of SOC based on spatial and temporal patterns of water erosion rates derived from an empirical Unit Stream Power Erosion Deposition Model (USPED) model. The water erosion rates simulated by the USPED model agreed reasonably with observations (R2 = 0.43, P < 0.01). We showed that regional water erosion ranged within 23.3–50 Mg ha–1 year–1 during 1992–2013, inducing the lateral redistribution of SOC caused by erosion in the range of 0.027–0.049 Mg C ha–1 year–1, and that caused by deposition of 0.0079–0.015 Mg C ha–1 year–1, in the three basins. The total eroded SOC was 0.006, 0.002 and 0.001 Pg year–1 in the Yangtze River, Yellow River and Pearl River Basins respectively. The net eroded SOC in the three basins was ~0.0075 Pg C year–1. Overall, the annual average redistributed SOC rate caused by erosion was greater than that caused by deposition, and the SOC loss in the Yangtze River Basin was greatest among the three basins. Our study suggests that considering both processes of erosion and deposition – as well as effects of topography, rainfall, land use types and their interactions – on these processes are important to understand SOC redistribution caused by water erosion.
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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".