Carbon in Chinese grasslands: meta-analysis and theory of grazing effects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Globally, livestock grazing is an important management factor influencing soil degradation, soil health and carbon (C) stocks of grassland ecosystems. However, the effects of grassland types, grazing intensity and grazing duration on C stocks are unclear across large geographic scales. To provide a more comprehensive assessment of how grazing drives ecosystem C stocks in grasslands, we compiled and analyzed data from 306 studies featuring four grassland types across China: desert steppes, typical steppes, meadow steppes and alpine steppes. Light grazing was the best management practice for desert steppes (< 2 sheep ha−1) and typical steppes (3 to 4 sheep ha−1), whereas medium grazing pressure was optimal for meadow steppes (5 to 6 sheep ha−1) and alpine steppes (7 to 8 sheep ha−1) leading to the highest ecosystem C stocks under grazing. Plant biomass (desert steppes) and soil C stocks (meadow steppes) increased under light or medium grazing, confirming the ‘intermediate disturbance hypothesis’. Heavy grazing decreased all C stocks regardless of grassland ecosystem types, approximately 1.4 Mg ha−1 per year for the whole ecosystem. The regrowth and regeneration of grasslands in response to grazing intensity (i.e., grazing optimization) depended on grassland types and grazing duration. In conclusion, grassland grazing is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, proper management (light or medium grazing) can maintain and even increase C stocks above- and belowground, and increase the harvested livestock products from grasslands. On the other hand, human-induced overgrazing can lead to rapid degradation of vegetation and soils, resulting in significant carbon loss and requiring long-term recovery. Grazing regimes (i.e., intensity and duration applied) must consider specific grassland characteristics to ensure stable productivity rates and optimal impacts on ecosystem C stocks. Graphical Abstract
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 | 0.018 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.023 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".