Soil management considerations for water resiliency in a changing climate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Providing adequate water for crops is a key consideration for agricultural resiliency. Climate change is expected to exert substantial pressure on crop water supplies through increased rainfall variability and increased evaporative demand. The temporal and spatial variability of these climate change impacts, in combination with many feedbacks, at times operating at different scales, makes identifying specific, yet broadly applicable “one‐size‐fits‐all” soil management solutions challenging. Adaptations that work well in one location may represent a poor management choice in another. Considering the local combinations of climate, soils, and crop production systems is fundamental for identifying appropriate strategies. Nonetheless, some broadly applicable soil management pathways for increasing soil water availability can be identified: (i) maximizing rainfall capture, (ii) maximizing soil water storage capacity (intensity × volume), and (iii) suppressing unproductive evaporative water losses, particularly during intervals when leaf area of the primary crop is low. Selecting climate, soil, and production‐system‐appropriate tillage and surface cover management practices is among the most relevant considerations for improving soil water availability. Maintaining surface cover favors evaporation suppression and increased capture of precipitation. Tillage choices affect internal soil water storage through impacts on soil properties that influence storage intensity and by altering the volume of soil available for root growth, as well as through effects on surface cover. Promoted management practices aimed at improving soil water availability for increased agricultural resiliency must be practically feasible and cost‐effective in order to support their broad adoption, and such constraints should be an important consideration in their development.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".