Twenty-five years of changes in soil cover on Canadian Chernozemic (Mollisol) soils, and the impact on the risk of soil degradation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Huffman, T., Coote, D. R. and Green, M. 2012. Twenty-five years of changes in soil cover on Canadian Chernozemic (Mollisol) soils, and the impact on the risk of soil degradation. Can. J. Soil Sci. 92: 471-479. Agricultural soils that are covered by vegetation or crop residue are less susceptible to degradation by wind and water erosion, organic matter depletion, structural degradation and declining fertility. In general, perennial crops, higher yields, reduced tillage and continuous cropping provide more soil cover than annual crops, lower yields, intensive tillage, residue harvesting and fallowing. This study presents a model for estimating the number of days in a year that the soil surface is protected and demonstrates its application on the Canadian prairies over the period from 1981 to 2006. Over the 25-yr study period, the average soil cover on Canadian prairie soils increased by 4.8% overall. The improvement came primarily as a result of widespread adoption of no-till and a decline in the use of summerfallow, but the gains were offset to a great deal by a shift from higher-cover crops such as wheat, oats and barley to more profitable but lower-cover crops such as canola, soybeans and potatoes. The implication of these trends is that, even though protection of prairie agricultural soils has improved over the past 25 yr, soil cover could decline dramatically over the next several decades if crop changes continue, the adoption of conservation tillage reaches a peak and residue harvesting for biofuels becomes more common.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".