MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2017510337 · doi:10.1139/x10-224

Effects of manganese addition on carbon release from forest floor horizons

2011· article· en· W2017510337 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Florence Trum, Hugues Titeux, Jean‐Thomas Cornelis, Bruno Delvaux

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForest floorFagus sylvaticaLigninManganeseBeechDecompositionOrganic matterChemistryEnvironmental chemistryTotal organic carbonEnvironmental scienceBotanySoil scienceBiologySoil waterOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lignin concentration in organic residues largely controls their decomposition. Mn2+ may well play a key role in ligninolysis because it is a cofactor of manganese peroxidase, an enzyme of the lignin-degrading system. This study aims to investigate the effects of Mn2+ addition on forest floor horizon decomposition during laboratory incubation. Therefore, we sampled two distinct forest floors from European beech ( Fagus sylvatica L.) stands: a mor and a moder. Lignin and Mn concentrations in forest floor upper layer were significantly larger in moder than in mor. Three horizons from each forest floor were separately incubated with or without Mn2+ addition (250 mg Mn·kg dry matter–1) and the release of both CO2 and dissolved organic C was measured. The dissolved organic C release was not impacted by the Mn2+ addition, while a clear increase in CO2 release from specific horizons was observed. Our data suggest that the impact of the Mn2+ addition depends on (i) the forest floor type and on (ii) the organic matter decomposition stage.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations25
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest Research→Same topicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics→French-language works237,207→