25-years of stewardship programs enhance regenerative outcomes in river delta soils of southwestern British Columbia, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Agricultural stewardship programs that incentivize practices such as winter cover cropping (WCC), grassland set-asides (GLSA), and hedgerows (HR) for intensive annual agricultural production are often implemented to improve both soil conditions and provision of wildlife habitat in coastal agricultural systems of the Fraser River Delta, British Columbia (BC). Although these programs have been shown to support numerous ecosystem services, it is unclear how they contribute to regenerative agricultural outcomes. Regenerative agricultural practices aim to increase soil carbon inputs and reduce carbon dioxide losses which in turn improves soil structure, optimizes soil water regulation, and provides climate mitigation and resiliency of agricultural systems. The objectives of this study were to quantify the effects of agricultural stewardship programs for regenerative outcomes through indicators of climate mitigation and adaptation. Twenty-six fields in the southwestern, BC were grouped by those that participated in stewardship programs between 1992 and 2016 and those that did not. In the spring of 2018, soil samples were collected; soil organic carbon (SOC) concentrations were measured, and stocks were calculated; pedo-transfer functions were used to estimate soil water regulation indicators; and differences among stewardship program and non-program fields were statistically analyzed using a linear mixed effects model. The SOC (mg kg−1) from 0 to 15 cm was greater with implementation of stewardship programs. Topsoil equivalent soil mass SOC stocks (t/ha) were 71 % and 63 % greater in HR and WCC + GLSA program fields, respectively, compared to non-program fields. Soil workability threshold was 25 % and 14 % greater in HR and WCC + GLSA program fields, respectively, compared to non-program. Our results indicate that stewardship programs that include hedgerows and grassland set-asides promote accrual of soil carbon and improved soil water regulation and show that these programs can effectively enhance regenerative outcomes and improve agroecosystem resilience in this important agricultural region.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".