MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4319869469 · doi:10.1111/gcb.16632

Assessing long‐term impacts of cover crops on soil organic carbon in the central US Midwestern agroecosystems

2023· article· en· W4319869469 on OpenAlexaff
Ziqi Qin, Kaiyu Guan, Wang Zhou, Bin Peng, Jinyun Tang, Zhenong Jin, R. F. Grant, Tongxi Hu, María B. Villamil, Evan H. DeLucia, Andrew J. Margenot, Mishra Umakant, Zhangliang Chen, Jonathan Coppess

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Change Biology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersIllinois Nutrient Research and Education CouncilFoundation for Food and Agriculture Research
KeywordsCover cropEnvironmental scienceAgroecosystemSoil carbonAgroforestryAgricultureAgricultural engineeringAgronomyGeographySoil waterEngineeringSoil science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Cover crops have been reported as one of the most effective practices to increase soil organic carbon (SOC) for agroecosystems. Impacts of cover crops on SOC change vary depending on soil properties, climate, and management practices, but it remains unclear how these control factors affect SOC benefits from cover crops, as well as which management practices can maximize SOC benefits. To address these questions, we used an advanced process‐based agroecosystem model, ecosys , to assess the impacts of winter cover cropping on SOC accumulation under different environmental and management conditions. We aimed to answer the following questions: (1) To what extent do cover crops benefit SOC accumulation, and how do SOC benefits from cover crops vary with different factors (i.e., initial soil properties, cover crop types, climate during the cover crop growth period, and cover crop planting and terminating time)? (2) How can we enhance SOC benefits from cover crops under different cover crop management options? Specifically, we first calibrated and validated the ecosys model at two long‐term field experiment sites with SOC measurements in Illinois. We then applied the ecosys model to six cover crop field experiment sites spanning across Illinois to assess the impacts of different factors on SOC accumulation. Our modeling results revealed the following findings: (1) Growing cover crops can bring SOC benefits by 0.33 ± 0.06 MgC ha −1 year −1 in six cover crop field experiment sites across Illinois, and the SOC benefits are species specific to legume and non‐legume cover crops. (2) Initial SOC stocks and clay contents had overall small influences on SOC benefits from cover crops. During the cover crop growth period (i.e., winter and spring in the US Midwest), high temperature increased SOC benefits from cover crops, while the impacts from larger precipitation on SOC benefits varied field by field. (3) The SOC benefits from cover crops can be maximized by optimizing cover crop management practices (e.g., selecting cover crop types and controlling cover crop growth period) for the US Midwestern maize–soybean rotation system. Finally, we discussed the economic and policy implications of adopting cover crops in the US Midwest, including that current economic incentives to grow cover crops may not be sufficient to cover costs. This study systematically assessed cover crop impacts for SOC change in the US Midwest context, while also demonstrating that the ecosys model, with rigorous validation using field experiment data, can be an effective tool to guide the adaptive management of cover crops and quantify SOC benefits from cover crops. The study thus provides practical tools and insights for practitioners and policy‐makers to design cover crop related government agricultural policies and incentive programs for farmers and agri‐food related industries.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.205
Threshold uncertainty score0.407

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations60
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Change BiologySame topicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsFrench-language works237,207