MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1999414350 · doi:10.1139/x00-044

Litter decomposition in a transect of Norway spruce forests: substrate quality and climate control

2000· article· en· W1999414350 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Björn Berg, Maj‐Britt Johansson, Vernon Meentemeyer

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicForest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSkogs- och Jordbrukets Forskningsråd
KeywordsTransectPicea abiesLitterLigninDecompositionEnvironmental scienceSubstrate (aquarium)EcologyAnimal scienceChemistryBotanyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We used a climatic transect of 14 stands of Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) at which locally collected needle litters was incubated. Our purpose was to show that climate is not necessarily the main rate-regulating factor even in a long climatic transect. The sites are found in Sweden from 56 to 66°N. There was virtually no relationship between climate (AET ranging between 371 and 545 mm) and first-year mass loss (range 19.4-32.8%). Instead, substrate quality (litter Mn concentration) explained 27% of the site-to-site variation in first-year mass loss. For the later stages of decomposition (second to fifth year), the sites could be divided into two groups; one in which lignin concentration regulated litter mass-loss rates, and one in which lignin concentration was not an important control. In this latter group, Mn concentrations were the component best correlated with litter mass loss. When combining all data, Mn concentration gave the best linear relationship. We repeated this procedure using first- to fifth-year mass-loss values and found the same pattern. We concluded that litter Mn concentrations is a key factor for Norway spruce litter decomposition because of its influence on lignin degradation and that the very early stage is short or nonexistant.

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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.088
Threshold uncertainty score0.174

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations146
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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