MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4390533508 · doi:10.1038/s41598-024-51155-y

Spatial patterns of historical crop yields reveal soil health attributes in US Midwest fields

2024· article· en· W4390533508 on OpenAlexaff
Ames Fowler, Bruno Basso, Fidel Maureira, N. Millar, Ruben Ulbrich, William F. Brinton

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
Canadian institutionsKellogg's (Canada)
FundersGreat Lakes Bioenergy Research CenterNatural Resources Conservation ServiceCollege of Engineering, Michigan State UniversityMichigan State University FoundationNational Institute of Food and AgricultureAgBioResearch, Michigan State UniversityMichigan State University
KeywordsCropGeographyForestry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Attaining high crop yields and increasing carbon storage in agricultural soils, while avoiding negative environmental impacts on water quality, soil erosion, and biodiversity, requires accurate and precise management of crop inputs and management practices. The long-term analysis of spatial and temporal patterns of crop yields provides insights on how yields vary in a field, with parts of field constantly producing either high yields or low yields and other parts that fluctuate from one year to the next. The concept of yield stability has shown to be informative on how plants translate the effects of environmental conditions (e.g., soil, climate, topography) across the field and over the years in the final yield, and as a valuable layer in developing prescription maps of variable fertilizer rate inputs. Using known relationships between soil health and crop yields, we hypothesize that areas with measured constantly low yield will return low carbon to the soil affecting its heath. On this premises, yield stability zones (YSZ) provide an effective and practical integrative measure of the small-scale variability of soil health on a field relative basis. We tested this hypothesis by measuring various metrics of soil health from commercial farmers' fields in the north central Midwest of the USA in samples replicated across YSZ, using a soil test suite commonly used by producers and stakeholders active in agricultural carbon credits markets. We found that the use of YSZ allowed us to successfully partition field-relative soil organic carbon (SOC) and soil health metrics into statistically distinct regions. Low and stable (LS) yield zones were statistically lower in normalized SOC when compared to high and stable (HS) and unstable (US) yield zones. The drivers of the yield differences within a field are a series of factors ranging from climate, topography and soil. LS zones occur in areas of compacted soil layers or shallow soils (edge of the field) on steeper slopes. The US zones occurring with high water flow accumulation, were more dependent on topography and rainfall. The differences in the components of the overall soil health score (SHS) between these YSZ increased with sample depth suggesting a deeper topsoil in the US and HS zones, driven by the accumulation of water, nutrients, and carbon downslope. Comparison of the field management provided initial evidence that zero tillage reduces the magnitude of the variance in SOC and soil health metrics between the YSZ.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.111
Threshold uncertainty score0.222

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations21
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific Reports→Same topicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics→French-language works237,207→