MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1561518547 · doi:10.1139/x06-190

Influences of fire on forest soil fungal communitiesThis article is one of a selection of papers published in the Special Forum on Towards Sustainable Forestry — The Living Soil: Soil Biodiversity and Ecosystem Function.

2007· article· en· W1561518547 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
John Cairney, Brigitte A. Bastias

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAustralian Research CouncilUniversity of Western Sydney
KeywordsEdaphicEcosystemBiodiversityEnvironmental scienceForest ecologyEcologySoil biologyEcosystem servicesFire ecologyAgroforestrySoil waterGeographyBiologySoil science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wildfires and prescribed burns constitute widespread and potentially destructive disturbances in forest ecosystems. Fire-related effects on aboveground ecosystem components are well established, and it is known that fire can have both a direct and an indirect influence on the edaphic environment, but the effects of fire on soil-dwelling fungi are poorly understood. We review the disparate literature relating to fire effects on soil fungi, with emphasis on forest environments. A variety of effects have been reported, including altered fungal community structure along with increased or decreased mycorrhizal colonization of roots. Such effects, along with their duration, appear to be site- and (or) fire-specific, but are likely to be greater in the upper soil horizons. Where repeated burning occurs, the effects on soil fungal communities appear to be more pronounced with more frequent burning. Although fire may effect structural changes in soil fungal communities, the functional significance of such changes at the ecosystem level remains difficult to assess.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.609
Threshold uncertainty score0.841

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations172
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207