MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6939364718 · doi:10.60692/te0vv-p5572

Revisiting IPCC Tier 1 coefficients for soil organic and biomass carbon storage in agroforestry systems

2018· article· en· W6939364718 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueGreater South Information System · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgroforestry and silvopastoral systems
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarbon sequestrationSoil carbonClimate changeClimate change mitigationBiomass (ecology)HectareStock (firearms)Land useLivelihood

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Agroforestry systems comprise trees and crops, or trees and pastures within the same field. Globally, they cover approximately 1 billion hectares of land and contribute to the livelihoods of over 900 million people. Agroforestry systems have the capacity to sequester large quantities of carbon (C) in both soil and biomass. However, these systems have not yet been fully considered in the approach to C accounting developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, largely due to the high diversity of agroforestry systems and scarcity of relevant data. Our literature review identified a total of 72 scientific, peer-reviewed articles associated with biomass C storage (50) and with soil organic carbon (SOC) (122), containing a total of 542 observations (324 and 218, respectively). Based on a synthesis of the reported observations, we are presenting a set of Tier 1 coefficients for biomass C storage for each of the eight main agroforestry systems identified, including alley cropping, fallows, hedgerows, multistrata, parklands, shaded perennial-crop, silvoarable and silvopastoral systems, disaggregated by climate and region. Using the same agroforestry classification, we are presenting a set of stock change factors (FLU) and SOC accumulation/loss rates for three main land use changes (LUCs): cropland to agroforestry; forest to agroforestry; and grassland to agroforestry. Globally, the mean SOC stock change factors (± confidence intervals) were estimated to be 1.25 ± 0.04, 0.89 ± 0.07, and 1.19 ± 0.10, for the three main LUCs, respectively. However, these average coefficients hide huge disparities across and within different climates, regions, and types of agroforestry systems, highlighting the necessity to adopt the more disaggregated coefficients provided herein. We encourage national governments to synthesize data from local field experiments to generate country-specific factors for more robust estimation of biomass and SOC storage.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.126
Threshold uncertainty score0.347

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.174 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGreater South Information SystemSame topicAgroforestry and silvopastoral systemsFrench-language works237,207