MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Alder (<i>Alnus crispa</i>) effects on soils in ecosystems of the Agashashok River valley, northwest Alaska

2001· article· en· W202006001 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Chuck Rhoades, Hlynur Óskarsson, Dan Binkley, Bob Stottlemyer

Bibliographic record

VenueEcoscience · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicClimate change and permafrost
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersRocky Mountain Research StationUniversity of Georgia
KeywordsAlderUnderstoryTundraEcosystemEnvironmental scienceFloodplainForestryShrubCanopyEcologyBotanyAgronomyGeographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

At the northern limit of the boreal forest biome, alder (Alnus crispa [Ait.] Pursh) shrubs occur in a variety of ecosystems. We assessed the effects of individual alder shrubs on soil properties and understory plant tissue nitrogen in floodplain terraces, valley slopes and tussock tundra ridges. The three ecosystems differed with respect to soil properties and abiotic conditions and supported distinct plant communities. Alder increased resin-exchangeable soil N and NO3 production significantly in each ecosystem. The greatest difference between alder canopy and surrounding soil NO3 measured both under field and laboratory conditions occurred in floodplain sites. The shrub effect on soil pH and soil organic matter was greatest on tundra ridges. Alder shrubs also influenced the nitrogen nutrition of plants growing beneath their canopies. Plants growing below alder canopies had higher foliar nitrogen concentration and natural abundance 15N composition and lower carbon to nitrogen ratio than open-grown plants. Similar to soil N availability, understory plant leaf chemistry responded more to alder on floodplains than on slope or tundra ecosystems. This pattern suggests that understory plants rely more heavily on alder-fixed-N in this resource-poor ecosystem.

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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

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 communication0.0010.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations78
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcoscienceSame topicClimate change and permafrostFrench-language works237,207