MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4318476928 · doi:10.3390/su15032338

Regenerative Agriculture—A Literature Review on the Practices and Mechanisms Used to Improve Soil Health

2023· article· en· W4318476928 on OpenAlexaff
Ravjit Khangura, David Ferris, Cameron Wagg, Jamie Bowyer

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainability · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoil carbonAgroecologyAgroforestryAgricultureSoil healthSoil retrogression and degradationTillageCroppingEnvironmental scienceLand degradationEcosystem servicesCarbon sequestrationBusinessNatural resource economicsSoil organic matterAgronomyEcosystemEcologySoil waterSoil scienceEconomicsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Conventional farming practices can lead to soil degradation and a decline in productivity. Regenerative agriculture (RA) is purported by advocates as a solution to these issues that focuses on soil health and carbon sequestration. The fundamental principles of RA are to keep the soil covered, minimise soil disturbance, preserve living roots in the soil year round, increase species diversity, integrate livestock, and limit or eliminate the use of synthetic compounds (such as herbicides and fertilisers). The overall objectives are to rejuvenate the soil and land and provide environmental, economic, and social benefits to the wider community. Despite the purported benefits of RA, a vast majority of growers are reluctant to adopt these practices due to a lack of empirical evidence on the claimed benefits and profitability. We examined the reported benefits and mechanisms associated with RA against available scientific data. The literature suggests that agricultural practices such as minimum tillage, residue retention, and cover cropping can improve soil carbon, crop yield, and soil health in certain climatic zones and soil types. Excessive use of synthetic chemicals can lead to biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation. Combining livestock with cropping and agroforestry in the same landscape can increase soil carbon and provide several co-benefits. However, the benefits of RA practices can vary among different agroecosystems and may not necessarily be applicable across multiple agroecological regions. Our recommendation is to implement rigorous long-term farming system trials to compare conventional and RA practices in order to build knowledge on the benefits and mechanisms associated with RA on regional scales. This will provide growers and policy-makers with an evidence base from which to make informed decisions about adopting RA practices to realise their social and economic benefits and achieve resilience against climate change.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.269 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations322
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSustainabilitySame topicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsFrench-language works237,207