MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993554215 · doi:10.1139/x04-179

Woody debris along an upland chronosequence in boreal Manitoba and its impact on long-term carbon storage

2005· article· en· W1993554215 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Kristen Manies, J. W. Harden, Ben Bond‐Lamberty, K. P. O'Neill

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicForest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDivision of Environmental BiologyU.S. Geological SurveyNational Science Foundation
KeywordsChronosequenceCoarse woody debrisEnvironmental scienceDebrisBlack spruceSnagSoil carbonBiomass (ecology)TaigaPrimary productionEcosystemForestryEcologySoil scienceSoil waterGeologyGeographyHabitatBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigated the role of fire-killed woody debris as a source of soil carbon in black spruce (Picea mariana (Mill.) BSP) stands in Manitoba, Canada. We measured the amount of standing dead and downed woody debris along an upland chronosequence, including wood partially and completely covered by moss growth. Such woody debris is rarely included in measurement protocols and composed up to 26% of the total amount of woody debris in older stands, suggesting that it is important to measure all types of woody debris in ecosystems where burial by organic matter is possible. Based on these data and existing net primary production (NPP) values, we used a mass-balance model to assess the potential impact of fire-killed wood on long-term carbon storage at this site. The amount of carbon stored in deeper soil organic layers, which persists over millennia, was used to represent this long-term carbon. We estimate that between 10% and 60% of the deep-soil carbon is derived from wood biomass. Sensitivity analyses suggest that this estimate is most affected by the fire return interval, decay rate of wood, amount of NPP, and decay rate of the char (postfire) carbon pool. Landscape variations in these terms could account for large differences in deep-soil carbon. The model was less sensitive to fire consumption rates and to rates at which standing dead becomes woody debris. All model runs, however, suggest that woody debris plays an important role in long-term carbon storage for this area.

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)0.001
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 score0.889
Threshold uncertainty score0.953

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations74
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicForest Ecology and Biodiversity StudiesFrench-language works237,207