MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982366117 · doi:10.1139/x07-003

Seasonal variation in throughfall and stemflow chemistry beneath a European beech (<i>Fagus sylvatica</i>) tree in relation to canopy phenology

2007· article· en· W1982366117 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jeroen Staelens, An De Schrijver, Kris Verheyen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
KeywordsThroughfallStemflowBeechFagus sylvaticaCanopyEnvironmental scienceForest floorFagaceaeDeposition (geology)Growing seasonTree canopyPicea abiesSeasonalityChemistryBotanySoil waterEcologySoil scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effect of canopy phenology on major ion fluxes beneath a mature European beech ( Fagus sylvatica L.) tree is examined. Annual and seasonal ion fluxes to the forest floor were significantly higher than the incoming wet-only deposition for all ions measured other than H + . The annual throughfall to wet deposition ratio generally ranged from 2.1 to 4.8. Stemflow contributed 9%–19% of the ion input to the forest floor, except for H + . Throughfall enrichment of K + , Ca 2+ , Mg 2+ , and NO 3 – was significantly higher in the leafed than in the leafless season, in contrast to Na + , NH 4 + , and H + . The temporal pattern of ion enrichment indicated canopy release of K + , Ca 2+ , and Mg 2+ throughout the leafed season, of Na + , Cl – , and NH 4 + from emerging leaves, and of Cl – and SO 4 2– from senescing leaves. The contribution of canopy leaching to annual net throughfall and stemflow was estimated at 96% (K + ), 54% (Ca 2+ ), 40% (Mg 2+ ), 12% (Cl – ), and 7% (Na + , SO 4 2– ). Dry deposition accounted for 58%–75% of the total deposition onto the canopy. The throughfall enrichment during the leafless season indicated high particulate and gaseous dry deposition onto the woody canopy as well as K + release from European beech branches.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.424
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations94
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicPlant Water Relations and Carbon DynamicsFrench-language works237,207