Phosphorus forms and related soil chemistry of Podzolic soils on northern Vancouver Island. I. A comparison of two forest types
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When cedar-hemlock (CH) and hemlock - amabalis fir (HA) forests of northern Vancouver Island are clearcut and replanted, growth of replanted trees is often poor on CH clearcuts but not adjacent HA clearcuts. This poor growth can be overcome with nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) fertilization, which suggests differences in nutrient cycling between CH and HA forests. The objective of this study was to investigate soil P in mature, uncut stands of CH and HA forests. The results suggest that there are no inherent differences in soil P concentration between the CH and HA forests. The diversity of P forms as revealed by 31P-NMR spectroscopy was typical of cool, moist acidic forests with high P immobilization. Diester phosphates were found throughout the soil profile, albeit at very low levels in the mineral horizons. Phosphorus forms and cycling were vertically stratified down the profile. Most of the P in the LF horizon was in organic forms typical of litterfall. In the more humified H horizon the P forms were more typical of soil organisms. The high C/N and C/P ratios in the LF and H horizons at the CH site are consistent with microbial immobilization. In the upper Bhf horizon, inorganic P was predominantly nonoccluded. Organic P was present, mainly as orthophosphate monoesters, which were probably adsorbed on soil colloids. In the lower Bhf horizon, most P was occluded in amorphous sesquioxides, with low levels of organic P, mainly as orthophosphate monoesters.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".