Impacts of repeated fertilization on components of the soil biota under a young lodgepole pine stand in the interior of British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We studied elements of the soil biota in a 24-year-old lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta Dougl. ex Loud. var. latifolia Engelm.) stand in interior British Columbia 10 years after initiation of annual fertilizer treatments. The treatments included an unfertilized control, ON1 (650 kg nitrogen (N), 400 kg phosphorus (P), 400 kg potassium (K)), and ON2 (1350 kg N, 400 kg P, 400 kg K). In the forest floor, the C/N ratio was lower in ON1 and ON2 than in the unfertilized control, while available P and exchangeable magnesium were higher; NO3was higher only in ON2. In the upper mineral soil, available P was higher in ON1 and ON2, while NO3was higher only in ON2. In both the forest floor and upper mineral soil, microbial activity was higher in ON1 than in the unfertilized control or ON2. In the forest floor and mineral soil, Acari density, especially Oribatida and Prostigmata, was higher in ON2 than in ON1 and the unfertilized control. In contrast, Collembola density, especially Hypogastruridae, increased in ON2 relative to that in other treatments. ON2 had less lodgepole pine fine-root length, fewer ectomycorrhizal roots, fewer active fine roots, more nonmycorrhizal fine roots, and a different ectomycorrhizal community structure than ON1 and the unfertilized control. These dynamic changes to the soil biota appear to reflect changes to the plant community in response to fertilization.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".