MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4381939680 · doi:10.1007/s44246-023-00051-7

Carbon in Chinese grasslands: meta-analysis and theory of grazing effects

2023· article· en· W4381939680 on OpenAlex
Lei Deng, Zhouping Shangguan, Stephen M. Bell, Andrey Soromotin, Changhui Peng, Shaoshan An, Xing Wu, Xingliang Xu, Kaibo Wang, Jianping Li, Zhuangsheng Tang, Weiming Yan, Fengbao Zhang, Jiwei Li, Jianzhao Wu, Yakov Kuzyakov

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCarbon Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRangeland Management and Livestock Ecology
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersRUDN UniversityChinese Academy of SciencesNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsGrazingSteppeGrasslandOvergrazingGrassland degradationEnvironmental scienceConservation grazingEcosystemGrazing pressureGrassland ecosystemAgronomyEcologyAgroforestryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.254

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.284 · 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