Interactive effects of condensed tannin and cellulose additions on soil respiration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plant polyphenolics are receiving increased attention for their influences on belowground processes. Tannins are of particular interest because of their predominance in natural systems, their wide variation in both quality and quantity, and their protein-binding abilities. Current theory holds that simple phenolics increase microbial activity by acting as carbon substrates, while larger tannins decrease microbial activity by binding with organic nitrogen such as proteins. Here, we present results from a simple microcosm experiment that demonstrates that the influence of condensed tannins on soil respiration depends on the availability of additional carbon substrates. We purified tannins from trembling aspen ( Populus tremuloides Michx.) and crossed three levels of tannin additions with three levels of cellulose additions in laboratory microcosms. Soil respiration was measured over 36 days. In the absence of cellulose, high amounts of condensed tannins increased cumulative soil respiration. In the presence of abundant cellulose, condensed tannins decreased cumulative soil respiration. The positive and negative effects of purified tannins on soil respiration are time dependent, such that initial respiration is likely tannin induced, while later respiration is cellulose induced and tannin limited.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".