MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416079780 · doi:10.1073/pnas.2515473122

The invisible subsoil compaction risk under no-till farming

2025· article· en· W4416079780 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Thomas Keller, Samuel Bickel, Dani Or

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoil Mechanics and Vehicle Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubsoilArable landTillageSoil compactionAgricultureSustainable agricultureCompactionSoil management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

No-till (NT) is a key component of conservation agriculture aiming at producing crops with minimal soil disturbance. This land management practice offers numerous economic and ecological advantages over conventional tillage as evidenced by its rapid expansion since the 1960s, now practiced on 15% of the global arable land. Nevertheless, various crops exhibit persistent yield losses even decades after transition to NT. Here, we demonstrate that the promise of beneficial and sustainable soil management may be undermined by a gradual and invisible threat of subsoil compaction. We report on a risk of subsoil compaction stemming from the episodic passage of heavy machinery (e.g., harvesters). The threat is of dynamic and asymmetric nature whenever compaction events occur more frequently than the natural rates of soil structure recovery, resulting in a gradual increase in soil degradation. Our analyses show that nearly 40% of global NT lands (0.8 million km 2 ) are under high subsoil compaction risk (primarily in heavily mechanized Canada, United States of America, and Brazil). Awareness and mitigation of subsoil compaction by scaling field operations to soil mechanical limits and adoption of smaller robotic vehicles will contribute to a sustainable and holistic conservation agriculture.

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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.747
Threshold uncertainty score0.232

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations10
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicSoil Mechanics and Vehicle DynamicsFrench-language works237,207