MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405266374 · doi:10.1016/j.agee.2024.109418

Net ecosystem carbon budget and net greenhouse gas emissions under diverse crop rotation using cover crops compared to a conventional crop rotation

2024· article· en· W4405266374 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Keerthika N. Ranathunga, Jacob Evans, N. Tòth, Shannon E. Brown, Laura L. Van Eerd, Claudia Wagner‐Riddle

Bibliographic record

VenueAgriculture Ecosystems & Environment · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaOntario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceGreenhouse gasCrop rotationCropCover cropAgronomyCarbon fibersAgroforestryEcologyMathematicsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introducing cover crops and diversifying annual crop rotations can provide additional carbon (C) input to soils and are practices that have been promoted as climate change mitigation measures. However, year-round field studies are needed to evaluate the net effect on carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) uptake, including consideration of carbon removal from the field during harvest depending on the crop grown to diversify the rotation. In addition, evaluation of net greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions requires accounting for changes in soil nitrous oxide (N 2 O) and CO 2 emissions from production of farm inputs and field operations in the altered crop rotation. In this study, our objectives were to evaluate the annual dynamics of CO 2 exchange and to estimate net GHG emissions for a diverse (DIV) corn-soybean-winter wheat crop rotation that included cover crops and a conventional (CONV) corn-soybean-soybean crop rotation. The year-round net ecosystem exchange (NEE) of CO 2 on two side-by-side 8-ha fields (one under DIV and one under CONV management) was measured using the eddy covariance method over three years (2018–2021) in Ontario, Canada. Results showed that DIV rotation significantly increased cumulative NEE, gross primary production (GPP), and ecosystem respiration (Re) –578, –3750 and 3170 g C m −2 , respectively, compared to the CONV (–501, –3361, 2859 g C m −2 ) over three years. Overall, the DIV rotation resulted in a 15 % increase in NEE compared to CONV. Accounting for the grain C removed during harvest, on an annual basis, DIV and CONV corn and soybean fields were C sources. However, net ecosystem carbon budget (NECB) was a sink (–44 g C m −2 ) for DIV winter wheat + cover crops if only grain was removed and reversed to a C source (197 g C m −2 ) with straw + grain removal. The summed NECB across the three study years revealed that both fields were C sources (NECB > 0). Similarly, the DIV rotation was a net GHG source compared to CONV for straw + grain removal but had similar net GHG emission to CONV when only wheat grain was removed. From the present study, DIV did not reduce the net GHG emissions in the short term (3 years) as expected, but long-term measurements are needed to confirm this trend. Further multi-year eddy covariance and soil carbon stock measurements should be done to design effective diversified crop rotations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.948
Threshold uncertainty score0.669

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations13
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAgriculture Ecosystems & EnvironmentSame topicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsFrench-language works237,207