Carbon balance of different aged Scots pine forests in Southern Finland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We estimated annual net ecosystem exchange (NEE) of a chronosequence of four Scots pine stands in southern Finland during years 2000–2002 using eddy covariance (EC). Net ecosystem productivity (NEP) was estimated using growth measurements and modelled mass losses of woody debris. The stands were 4, 12, 40 and 75 years old. The 4‐year‐old clearcut was a source of carbon throughout the year combining a low gross primary productivity (GPP) with a total ecosystem respiration (TER) similar to the forest stands. The annual NEE of the clearcut, measured by EC, was 386 g C m−2. Tree growth was negligible and the estimated NEP was −262 g C m−2 a−1. The annual GPPs at the other sites were close to each other (928−1072 g C m−2 a−1), but TER differed markedly, being greatest at the 12‐year‐old site (905 g C m−2 a−1) and smallest in the 75‐year‐old stand (616 g C m−2 a−1). Measurements of soil CO2 efflux showed that different rates of soil respiration largely explained the differences in TER. The NEE and NEP of the 12‐year‐old stand were close to zero. The forested stands were sinks of carbon. They had similar annual patterns of carbon exchange and half‐hourly eddy fluxes were highly correlated, indicating similar responses to the environment. The NEE in the 40‐year‐old stand varied between −179 and –192 g C m−2 a−1, while NEP was between 214 and 242 g C m−2 a−1. The annual NEE of the 75‐year‐old stand was 323 g C m−2 and NEP was 252 g C m−2. This indicates that there was no reduction in carbon sink strength with stand age.
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 | 0.000 | 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".