Crop responses to topsoil replacement within eroded landscapes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Approaches to restore productivity to eroded soils are urgently needed to sustain food security. We evaluated plant response to soil‐landscape rehabilitation, in which approximately 15 cm of topsoil was moved from depositional landscape positions to the eroded upper slope. Crop response was monitored for 6 yr of a corn ( Zea mays L.)–soybean [ Glycine max (L.) Merr.] rotation at a severely eroded site and for 4 yr of a wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.)–soybean rotation at a moderately eroded site. Experiments were conducted in years with relatively wet springs and droughty summers. In the severely eroded landscape, addition of 15 cm of soil increased crop biomass by 25–95% on a kg ha –1 basis and increased grain yields by 20–49% (corn) and 12–59% (soybean), with the largest yield increases recorded in the most eroded landscape positions. Soil addition increased corn grain protein and test weight. No significant differences were observed in crop emergence rate or stand establishment. In the moderately eroded landscape, soil addition significantly increased crop biomass, but not grain yield. In both landscapes, yields were lower in areas of soil removal than in adjacent areas from which no soil was removed, which is likely at least partially an artifact of the plot design. While more research is needed to evaluate long‐term impacts, the results of these studies show that soil‐landscape rehabilitation may help alleviate the effects of past erosion and provide immediate benefits to the productivity of severely eroded soils.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".