Quantifying changes in soil organic carbon density from 1982 to 2020 in Chinese grasslands using a random forest model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
China has the second-largest grassland area in the world. Soil organic carbon storage (SOCS) in grasslands plays a critical role in maintaining carbon balance and mitigating climate change, both nationally and globally. Soil organic carbon density (SOCD) is an important indicator of SOCS. Exploring the spatiotemporal dynamics of SOCD enables policymakers to develop strategies to reduce carbon emissions, thus meeting the goals of “emission peak” in 2030 and “carbon neutrality” in 2060 proposed by the Chinese government. The objective of this study was to quantify the dynamics of SOCD (0–100 cm) in Chinese grasslands from 1982 to 2020 and identify the dominant drivers of SOCD change using a random forest model. The results showed that the mean SOCD in Chinese grasslands was 7.791 kg C m−2 in 1982 and 8.525 kg C m−2 in 2020, with a net increase of 0.734 kg C m−2 across China. The areas with increased SOCD were mainly distributed in the southern (0.411 kg C m−2), northwestern (1.439 kg C m−2), and Qinghai–Tibetan (0.915 kg C m−2) regions, while those with decreased SOCD were mainly found in the northern (0.172 kg C m−2) region. Temperature, normalized difference vegetation index, elevation, and wind speed were the dominant factors driving grassland SOCD change, explaining 73.23% of total variation in SOCD. During the study period, grassland SOCS increased in the northwestern region but decreased in the other three regions. Overall, SOCS of Chinese grasslands in 2020 was 22.623 Pg, with a net decrease of 1.158 Pg since 1982. Over the past few decades, the reduction in SOCS caused by grassland degradation may have contributed to soil organic carbon loss and created a negative impact on climate. The results highlight the urgency of strengthening soil carbon management in these grasslands and improving SOCS towards a positive climate impact.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".