Evaluating the Effects of Topographic Position on Soil Carbon Content in Prairie Pothole Agricultural Landscapes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prairie potholes are depressional wetland features found throughout the northern Great Plains region of the United States and Canada. These wetlands have high potential to store large quantities of carbon, but many have been altered for conventional agricultural practices. Recently, conservation practices (e.g., no-till and cover crops) and federal conservation programs (e.g., Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)) are contributing to these landscapes returning to their more natural state. The restoration of prairie pothole soils has the potential to increase their carbon storage abilities, which would help decrease CO2 in the atmosphere and aid in mitigating climate change. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effects that topographic position has on soil carbon content in agricultural landscapes with prairie potholes. Methods include: 1) collecting soil cores along a toposequence from four different land uses (native grassland, CRP lands, conservation agriculture, and conventional agriculture); 2) quantifying soil carbon content; 3) characterizing prairie pothole soil physical properties (i.e., bulk density and particle size); and 4) performing statistical analyses to evaluate relationships among total carbon, bulk density, and particle size for topographic position, land use, and the interaction between them at 0-15 cm and 15-30 cm depths. Total carbon based on topographic position followed the predicted model, carbon increased and bulk density decreased progressing from the upland position to the pothole. Clay and silt content also increased down the hillslope while sand content decreased. Total carbon based on land use was more complex, with the native site storing the most carbon followed by conventional sites, then conservation sites, and CRP sites had the lowest total carbon though differences were not statistically significant. This was probably due to small sample sizes, wide ranges of total carbon, multiple landscape positions not being accessible, and land use history not being well established. This research highlights the importance of topographic position on soil carbon sequestration and storage, an often-overlooked variable, and that land use impacts on carbon are complicated and can be overshadowed by other factors such as pothole morphology and hydrology.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".