Soil processes and microbial community structures in 45- and 135-year-old lodgepole pine stands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As forests develop, changes in soil organic matter quantity and quality affect both nutrient dynamics and microbial community structure. Litter decomposition and nitrogen mineralization in association with soil microbial communities were compared between 45- and 135-year-old lodgepole pine ( Pinus contorta var. latifolia (Englem.)) stands in southeastern Wyoming, USA. Compared with the 45-year-old stand, the 135-year-old stand was found to have greater live-tree biomass, litter decomposition rates (264 versus 135 mg·(g litter)–1·year–1), soil nitrification rates (0.38 versus 0.19 µg NO3–·(g soil)–1 after 265 days of field incubation), and total phospholipid fatty acid (PLFA) concentrations (25 versus 9.2 nmol·(g soil)–1 at 0–5 cm depth). Canonical correspondence analysis indicated that variation of PLFA profiles within the 45-year-old stand was explained by soil pH and bulk density, whereas soil process rates explained the distributions of PLFA profiles within the 135-year-old stand. The results of these studies indicate that stand age influences live-tree biomass and soil properties that can lead to changes in litter decomposition rates and soil microbial communities in lodgepole pine forests.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".