MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007293128 · doi:10.4141/s06-012

Changes in carbon storage of broadcast burn plantations over 20 years

2007· article· en· W2007293128 on OpenAlexaffvenue
J. M. Kranabetter, Anne M. Macadam

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Soil Science · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicForest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsSmiths Detection (Canada)Government of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPinus contortaEnvironmental scienceSlash (logging)Carbon sequestrationSoil waterLoggingAgronomyCarbon sinkSoil carbonForest floorAgroforestryForestryBiomass (ecology)EcosystemCarbon dioxideBiologyEcologySoil scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The extent of carbon (C) storage in forests and the change in C stocks after harvesting are important considerations in the management of greenhouse gases. We measured changes in C storage over time (from postharvest, postburn, year 5, year 10 and year 20) in logging slash, forest floors, mineral soils and planted lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta var. latifolia) trees from six prescribed-burn plantations in north central British Columbia. After harvest, site C in these pools averaged 139 Mg ha-1, with approximately equal contributions from mineral soils (0–30 cm), forest floors and logging slash. Together these detrital pools declined by 71 Mg C ha-1, or 51% (28% directly from the broadcast burn, and a further 23% postburn), in the subsequent 20 yr. Postburn decay in logging slash was inferred by reductions in wood density (from 0.40 to 0.34 g cm-3), equal to an average k rate of 0.011 yr-1. Losses in forest floor C, amounting to more than 60% of the initial mass, were immediate and continued to year 5, with no reaccumulation evident by year 20. Mineral soil C concentrations initially fluctuated before declining by 25% through years 10 and 20. Overall, the reductions in C storage were offset by biomass accumulation of lodgepole pine, and we estimate these plantations had become a net sink for C before year 20, although total C storage was still less than postharvest levels. Key words: C sequestration, forest floors; coarse woody debris; soil organic matter

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.883
Threshold uncertainty score0.233

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.188 · 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

Citations8
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Soil ScienceSame topicForest Ecology and Biodiversity StudiesFrench-language works237,207