ArticleEcology and evolution2019
An alternative approach to reduce algorithm-derived biases in monitoring soil organic carbon changes.
Article in Ecology and evolution, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Impurity Removal and Comprehensive Utilization of Phosphogypsum: A Review.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- An alternative approach to reduce algorithm-derived biases in monitoring soil organic carbon changes.Ecology and evolution · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Quantifying soil organic carbon (SOC) changes is a fundamental issue in ecology and sustainable agriculture. However, the algorithm-derived biases in comparing SOC status have not been fully addressed. Although the methods based on equivalent soil mass (ESM) and mineral-matter mass (EMMM) reduced biases of the conventional methods based on equivalent soil volume (ESV), they face challenges in ensuring both data comparability and accuracy of SOC estimation due to unequal basis for comparison and using unconserved reference systems. We introduce the basal mineral-matter reference systems (soils at time zero with natural porosity but no organic matter) and develop an approach based on equivalent mineral-matter volume (EMMV). To show the temporal bias, SOC change rates were recalculated with the ESV method and modified methods that referenced to soils at time t1 (ESM, EMMM, and EMMV-t1) or referenced to soils at time zero (EMMV-t0) using two datasets with contrasting SOC status. To show the spatial bias, the ESV- and EMMV-t0-derived SOC stocks were compared using datasets from six sites across biomes. We found that, in the relatively C-rich forests, SOC accumulation rates derived from the modified methods that referenced to t1 soils and from the EMMV-t0 method were 5.7%-13.6% and 20.6% higher than that calculated by the ESV method, respectively. Nevertheless, in the C-poor lands, no significant algorithmic biases of SOC estimation were observed. Finally, both the SOC stock discrepancies (ESV vs. EMMV-t0) and the proportions of this unaccounted SOC were large and site-dependent. These results suggest that although the modified methods that referenced to t1 soils could reduce the biases derived from soil volume changes, they may not properly quantify SOC changes due to using unconserved reference systems. The EMMV-t0 method provides an approach to address the two problems and is potentially useful since it enables SOC comparability and integrating SOC datasets.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.