MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2000557587 · doi:10.1139/x04-077

Nonsymbiotic nitrogen fixation in 3-year-old Jeffrey pines and the role of elevated [CO<sub>2</sub>]

2004· article· en· W2000557587 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Paul Verburg, Weixin Cheng, Dale W. Johnson, David E. Schorran

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant responses to elevated CO2
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsSoil waterFixation (population genetics)NitrogenNitrogen fixationNutrientChemistryEcosystemAnimal scienceAgronomyBotanyEcologyBiologyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Increased belowground labile C inputs under elevated [CO2] could stimulate nonsymbiotic N2 fixation, thereby enhancing growth responses of vegetation to elevated [CO2] on nutrient-poor sites. To test this hypothesis, nonsymbiotic N2 fixation rates in soils planted with 3-year-old Jeffrey pine (Pinus jeffreyi Grev. & Balf.) trees grown under 365 and 700 µL·L–1 atmospheric [CO2] were measured by exposing the soil to 15N2-enriched air for 78 d. Nitrogen fixation rates were estimated by measuring 15N content of trees and soil. Compared with the ambient CO2 treatment, the elevated CO2 treatment did not affect biomass, N content, or δ15N of individual plant parts and soils, indicating that elevated [CO2] did not stimulate nonsymbiotic N2 fixation. Because belowground C inputs did not increase under elevated [CO2], the initial hypothesis could not be accepted or rejected. The results from the 15N2 labeling study agree with other studies showing that nonsymbiotic N2 fixation is not likely to provide a large input of N in forest ecosystems. The 15N2 labeling technique was promising for studying N2 fixation in plant–soil systems, but the preliminary nature of this study did not allow for firm conclusions with regard to the effects of elevated [CO2].

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations6
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicPlant responses to elevated CO2French-language works237,207