Corn and Wheat Residue Management Effects on Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the Mid-Atlantic USA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from crop residue management have been studied extensively, yet the effects of harvesting more than one crop residue in a rotation have not been reported. Here, we measured the short-term changes in methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in response to residue removal from continuous corn (Zea mays L.) (CC) and corn–wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)–soybean (Glycine max L. Merr.) (CWS) rotations in the Mid-Atlantic USA. A first experiment retained five corn stover rates (0, 3.33, 6.66, 10, and 20 Mg ha−1) in a continuous corn (CC) in Blacksburg, VA, in 2016 and 2017. Two other experiments, initiated during the wheat and corn phases of the CWS rotation in New Kent, VA, utilized a factorial combination of retained corn (0, 3.33, 6.66, and 10.0 Mg ha−1) and wheat residue (0, 1, 2, and 3 Mg ha−1). Soybean residue was not varied. Different crop retention rates did not affect CO2 fluxes in any of the field studies. In Blacksburg, retaining 5 Mg ha−1 stover or more increased CH4 and N2O emissions by ~25%. Maximum CH4 and N2O fluxes (4.16 and 5.94 mg m−2 day−1) occurred with 200% (20 Mg ha−1) retention. Two cycles of stover management in Blacksburg, and one cycle of corn or wheat residue management in New Kent did not affect GHG fluxes. This study is the first to investigate the effects of crop residue on GHG emissions in a multi-crop system in humid temperate zones. Longer-term studies are warranted to understand crop residue management effects on GHG emissions in these systems.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".