MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Selective herbivory on a nitrogen fixing legume (<i>Lathyrus venosus</i>) influences productivity and ecosystem nitrogen pools in an oak savanna

2000· article· en· W1788438719 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Johannes M. H. Knops, Mark E. Ritchie, David Tilman

Bibliographic record

VenueEcoscience · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEcosystemHerbivoreProductivityEcologyLathyrusNitrogen cycleAgronomyBiologyTerrestrial ecosystemEnvironmental scienceNitrogenChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Herbivory is known to change the structure of vegetation, but the possible effects of herbivory on ecosystem nitrogen pools are not well documented. Here we report that 13 years of deer exclusion significantly influenced ecosystem nitrogen pools and caused ecosystem productivity to more than double in a regularly burned Minnesota oak savanna. Herbivore exclusion greatly increased the abundance of Lathyrus venosus, a native nitrogen fixing legume. Primary productivity also increased through time, as did total soil nitrogen. This increase in productivity did not occur in unfenced plots, where there was a loss of total soil nitrogen, probably because fire-induced nitrogen losses exceeded gains. This study documents that herbivores, through “top-down” effects on foodwebs, can strongly influence nitrogen pools in terrestrial ecosystems, and that legumes can play a critical role in replacing fire-induced nitrogen losses in Midwestern oak savannas.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations53
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcoscienceSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207