Compost Amendment to a Grazed California Annual Grassland Increases Gross Primary Productivity Due To a Longer Growing Season
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Compost amendment to rangelands is a proposed nature‐based climate solution to increase plant productivity and soil carbon sequestration. However, it has not been evaluated using quasicontinuous ecosystem‐scale measurements. Here, we present the first study to utilize eddy covariance and footprint partitioning to monitor carbon exchange in a grassland with and without compost amendment, monitoring for 1 year before and 1 year after treatment. Compost amendment to an annual California grassland was found to enhance net ecosystem removal of carbon. Our study confirmed that compost‐amended grasslands, similar to nonamended grasslands, are net carbon sources to the atmosphere; however, the amendment appears to be slowing down the rate at which these ecosystems lose carbon by 0.71 Mg C ha−1 per growing season. Digital repeated imagery of the canopy revealed that compost‐amended grasslands experienced an earlier green‐up, resulting in an overall longer growing season by >60 days. Notably, we did not detect significantly higher amounts of soil carbon in compost‐amended soils. High variability in soil carbon demands greater sampling replication in future studies. A longer growing season and higher productivity are hypothesized to be a result of greater availability of macronutrients and micronutrients in the top layer of soil (specifically nitrogen, phosphorus, and zinc).
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".