MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1999916751 · doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2014.04.032

Can nitrogen isotope fractionation reveal ammonia oxidation responses to varying soil moisture?

2014· article· en· W1999916751 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Seok-In Yun, Hee‐Myong Ro

Bibliographic record

VenueSoil Biology and Biochemistry · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil and Water Nutrient Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinistry of Education, Science and TechnologyMcGill UniversityNational Research Foundation of KoreaU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsNitrificationLoamChemistryEnvironmental chemistryField capacityAmmoniumNitrogenMoistureIncubationSoil waterFractionationWater contentAmmoniaAgronomySoil scienceEnvironmental scienceBiochemistryBiologyChromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To interpret the response of ammonia oxidation to changing soil moisture, we conducted a batch aerobic incubation with a loam soil at different soil water potentials (SWP) from −1100 to −11 kPa, and calculated net nitrification rates and apparent isotope fractionation factors (αs/p). With increasing SWP, net nitrification rates increased from 2.3 to 9.8 mg N kg−1 d−1, while αs/p increased from 1.025 to 1.031 at field-capacity (SWP of −33 kPa) but decreased with increasing SWP above field capacity. The increased αs/p at field-capacity indicated that intracellular NH4+ concentration increased as a result of NH4+ supply exceeding NH3 oxidation, while NH3 oxidation exceeding NH4+ supply above field-capacity resulted in both decreased intracellular NH4+ concentration and αs/p. Our results suggest that NH4+ diffusion contributes more sensitively to increasing SWP than NH3 oxidation below field-capacity, while the reverse is the case above field-capacity.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.458
Threshold uncertainty score0.405

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations21
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSoil Biology and BiochemistrySame topicSoil and Water Nutrient DynamicsFrench-language works237,207