MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010544923 · doi:10.1111/gfs.12110

Microhabitat effects on herbaceous nutrient concentrations at the community and species level in <scp>M</scp>editerranean open woodlands: the role of species composition

2014· article· en· W2010544923 on OpenAlexafffund
Víctor Rolo, David Rivest, M. L. López‐Díaz, Gerardo Moreno

Bibliographic record

VenueGrass and Forage Science · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en Outaouais
FundersEuropean Social FundJunta de ExtremaduraMinisterio de Ciencia e InnovaciónFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les Technologies
KeywordsHerbaceous plantWoodlandSpecies richnessShrubNutrientBiologyEcologySpecies diversityPlant communityComposition (language)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The presence of a woody canopy in open oak woodlands affects not only the nutrition but also the species composition of the herbaceous community. Yet, the contribution of both effects (changes in nutrient concentrations and species composition) to total resources that are captured by the herbaceous community is not well understood. We assessed the mineral nutrition ( N , P , K and C a) of three herbaceous species and the herbaceous community as well as the species composition in contrasting microhabitats (beneath trees, beneath a leguminous shrub and in open spaces). Both trees and shrubs increased the nutrient concentrations of the herbaceous species that were studied, except for T araxacum officinale . Their effects were less consistent when the entire community was considered and depended upon the nutrient being analysed. Species richness and N , P and K concentrations were positively associated, suggesting that more nutrients are captured by the herbaceous community as diversity increases. Our results suggest a close relationship between species composition and nutritional value at the community level that may explain the discrepancies observed between both levels of analysis (species vs. community). Thus, farm‐level strategies based on the whole herbaceous community may overlook processes operating at the species level, which can be relevant to achieve sustainable management.

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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations13
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGrass and Forage ScienceSame topicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesFrench-language works237,207