MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2004727878 · doi:10.1139/x08-176

Nutrient cycling in two continuous cover scenarios for forest conversion of pine plantations on sandy soil. I. Nutrient cycling via aboveground tree biomass

2009· article· en· W2004727878 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
An De Schrijver, Guy Geudens, Karen Wuyts, Jeroen Staelens, Leen Gielis, Kris Verheyen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversiteit GentBijzonder Onderzoeksfonds UGentVlaamse regeringAgentschap voor Natuur en Bos
KeywordsCyclingScots pineEnvironmental scienceNutrient cycleBiogeochemical cycleNutrientBiomass (ecology)Betula pendulaLitterCanopyPlant litterForest ecologyAgronomyPine forestEcosystemPinus <genus>ForestryEcologyBotanyBiologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Conversion of coniferous pine plantations into mixed-species forests on sandy soils is an important concern for forest and nature management in Europe. However, little is know of the effect of the applied sylvicultural strategy on biogeochemical cycling throughout the conversion process. This study examined the aboveground biomass production and nutrient (N, P, K, Ca, and Mg) cycling in terms of litterfall, immobilization in stems and branches, canopy exchange, and yearly root uptake in two scenarios of continuous cover forestry a decade after the first intervention for converting a homogeneous Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) forest. Four regeneration types were studied: silver birch (Betula pendula L.) and pine after a shelterwood cutting and birch and pine after a group cutting. In conclusion, it can be stated that both the tree species and the conversion scenario influence the circulation of nutrients through the forest ecosystem: cycling of N, P, and K is determined by the tree species as well as the conversion scenario, whereas circulation of Ca and Mg is predominantly influenced by the type of conversion.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.279 · 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

Citations9
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest Research→Same topicForest ecology and management→French-language works237,207→