ArticleOpen research Europe2025
Machine learning-based identification of key biotic and abiotic drivers of mineral weathering rate in a complex enhanced weathering experiment.
Article in Open research Europe, 2025. 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.
- Synergistic Effects of a Microbial Amendment and Crushed Basalt: Soil Geochemical and Microbial Responses.Global change biology · 2026Article
- Machine learning-based identification of key biotic and abiotic drivers of mineral weathering rate in a complex enhanced weathering experiment.Open research Europe · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The optimization of enhanced mineral weathering as a carbon dioxide removal technology requires a comprehensive understanding of what drives mineral weathering. These drivers can be abiotic and biotic and can interact with each other. Therefore, in this study, an extensive 8-week column experiment was set up to investigate 30 potential drivers of mineral weathering simultaneously. Methods: The setup included various combinations of rock types and surface areas, irrigation settings, biochar and organic amendments, along with various biota and biotic products such as earthworms, fungi, bacteria and enzymes; each varying in type or species and quantity. The resulting changes in dissolved, solid, and total inorganic carbon (∆TIC), and total alkalinity were calculated as indicators of carbon dioxide removal through mineral weathering. Three machine learning models, Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO), Random Forest and eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGB) regression, were used to predict these indicators. Dominant drivers of the best performing model were investigated using SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP). Results: SHAP analysis revealed that each CDR indicator was influenced by different factors. However, key drivers were consistently abiotic, though biota also made a significant contribution to the predictions. The most representative CDR indicator, ∆TIC, was predominantly driven by steel slag addition and mixed rock grain sizes but was also substantially impacted by earthworms and microbes. Conclusions: These findings provide valuable insights into the complex interplay of numerous abiotic and biotic factors that affect mineral weathering, highlighting the potential of machine learning to unravel complex relationships in biogeochemical systems.
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.