MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1971432389 · doi:10.1139/x07-019

Partitioning heterotrophic and rhizospheric soil respiration in a mature Douglas-fir (<i>Pseudotsuga menziesii</i>) forest

2007· article· en· W1971432389 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Rachelle Germaine Lalonde, Cindy E. Prescott

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRespirationDouglas firRhizosphereSoil respirationBotanyClearcuttingHorticultureAnimal scienceBiologyEnvironmental scienceChemistryEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Total belowground respiration (Rs) was partitioned into heterotrophic (Rh) and rhizospheric (Rr) respiration to determine the amount of CO2 originating from each component in a coastal Douglas-fir ( Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco) forest. Rh was measured within cylinders from which roots, hyphae, and associated rhizosphere organisms were excluded by a 0.5 μm nylon mesh and installed 50 cm into the soil. Rs was 12 Mg C·ha–1·year–1 and ranged from 0.71 to 6.57 g C·m–2·day–1 during the 15 month experiment. Rh was 7.8 Mg C·ha–1·year–1, which contributed 65% of Rs, mostly between May and August. Rr was 4.2 Mg C·ha–1·year–1 (35% of Rs) and peaked in spring and fall. Soil temperature described the variability in Rs (p = 0.0004) better than soil moisture (p = 0.6156) and Rh was more closely related to temperature than was Rr. Values of Q10 were 1.7 for Rs and 2.2 for Rh. We also assessed three potential sources of error associated with this root-exclusion technique: respiration from decaying severed roots, stimulated respiration as a result of cylinder installation, and lateral diffusion of CO2 into cylinders. None of these artifacts were found to be significant sources of error in this experiment.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations21
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest Research→Same topicPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics→French-language works237,207→