Root dynamics of southern Ohio oak-hickory forests: influences of prescribed fire and landscape position
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compares standing root biomass from sequential root cores and new root production in ingrowth cores in three watersheds: an unburned control watershed, a watershed burned once in 1996, and a watershed burned for three consecutive years (19961998). Based on root cores collected on six sampling dates from April through November 1998, maximum standing live root biomass occurred approximately 1 month earlier in the growing season in the site burned three times, presumably because of increased soil temperature after the fires. Standing live fine root biomass was significantly lower in the site burned three times in three of the six sampling dates (April, June, and November) and when averaged over the whole growing season. Most of this effect was due to lesser root biomass in the most mesic landscape position. New root production was measured during three ingrowth core intervals: April to August 1998, August to November 1998, and August 1998 to November 1999. Net production was significantly greater in sample plots in xeric landscape positions during each sampling interval. Overall, differences in standing root biomass were inversely correlated with fire-induced changes in N mineralization and increased soil temperature after burning shifted the phenology of root biomass accumulation earlier in the growing season.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".