Evaluating the Farmland Use Intensity and Its Patterns in a Farming—Pastoral Ecotone of Northern China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The growing population and northward shifts in the center of grain production collectively contribute to the arising farmland use intensity of the farming–pastoral ecotone of Northern China (FPENC). Consequently, it poses a great threat to the vulnerable ecosystem of FPENC. Thus, farmland use intensity monitoring is a top priority to practice sustainable farming. In this study, we establish an indicator system designed to evaluate farmland use intensity in Ulanqab, located in the central part of FPENC. This system includes three single-year indicators (the degree of coupling between effective rainfall and crop water requirement (Dcrr), irrigation intensity (Iri) and crop duration (Cd)) and two multi-year indicators (the frequency of adopting the green-depressing cropping system (Gf) and rotation frequency (Rf)). We mapped five farmland use intensity indicators in Ulanqab from 2010 to 2019 using satellite imagery and other ancillary data. Then, the farmland use patterns were recognized by applying the self-organizing map algorithm. Our results suggest that the mapping results of crop types, center pivot irrigation (CPI), and irrigated areas are reasonably accurate. Iri, Cd, and Rf experienced an increase of 31 m3/hm2, 1 day, and 0.06 in Ulanqab from 2010 to 2019, respectively, while Dcrr and Gf witnessed a decrease of 0.002 and 0.004, respectively. That is, farmers are progressively inclined to higher farmland use intensity. Moreover, spatial heterogeneity analysis shows that Northern Ulanqab owned higher Dcrr, Iri, Cd, and Rf, and lower Gf than the southern part. We conclude the paper by discussing the implications of the results for areas with different farmland use intensity patterns.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".