MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389302712 · doi:10.1139/cjss-2023-0075

Tillage effects on growing season nitrous oxide emissions in Canadian cropland soils

2023· article· en· W4389302712 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
David E. Pelster, Jean-Pascal Matteau, R. Farrell, Guillermo Hernandez‐Ramirez

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Soil Science · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversité LavalAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
KeywordsGreenhouse gasEnvironmental scienceTillageNitrous oxideSoil waterGrowing seasonAgronomyConventional tillageAgricultureSoil scienceChemistryGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Minimizing tillage has been promoted as an agricultural practice that may mitigate greenhouse gas emissions through carbon sequestration. However, there is some ambiguity regarding the effect of minimum tillage (MT) on emissions of other greenhouse gases, in particular soil nitrous oxide (N 2 O) emissions. To determine how effective MT could be in helping Canada mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, we used a meta-analysis to compare growing season N 2 O emissions from MT versus conventional tillage (CT). Overall, MT had 12% lower N 2 O emissions compared to CT ( P = 0.03). However, there was high variability due to soil texture and growing season precipitation (GSP), with MT tending to emit more N 2 O than CT in climates where GSP exceeded 600 mm, particularly for soils with sand content less than 60%. Therefore, unless long-term tillage trials, which are urgently needed in eastern Canada, show a reduction in N 2 O emissions over time, MT should be used as a greenhouse gas mitigation measure only in dry climates or on sandy soils.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.148

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.006
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Soil ScienceSame topicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsFrench-language works237,207