MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2029974598 · doi:10.1139/x04-133

Needle and branch biomass turnover rates of Norway spruce (<i>Picea abies</i>)

2004· article· en· W2029974598 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Petteri Muukkonen, Aleksi Lehtonen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPicea abiesBiomass (ecology)Environmental scienceCrown (dentistry)LitterTurnoverPlant litterForestryBotanyEcologyEcosystemBiologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Turnover rates of needle and branch biomass, number of needle cohorts, and needle-shed dynamics were modelled for Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) in southern Finland. Biomass turnover rates, vertical distribution, and biomass of the branches were modelled simultaneously. The rate of needle turnover was determined from needle-shed dynamics. The potential litterfall of branches was modelled by combining the vertical distribution of branch biomass and the annual change in height of the crown base. The mean annual turnover rates for needle and branch biomass are 0.10 and 0.0125, respectively. At the age of 5.5 years, 50% of the needles in the needle cohort have been shed. In addition, at the age of 12 years, all needles of the needle cohort have been shed. Turnover of branch biomass was dependent on stand density and tree size. The modelled rates of biomass turnover agreed with measurements of needle and branch litterfall. Many process- or inventory-based models use a single turnover rate for branch litterfall based on literature, and some of the models are fully ignoring the litterfall of branches. Species-specific turnover rates or dynamic litterfall models should be applied when carbon flows in forest stands are modelled.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.407
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations62
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicForest ecology and managementFrench-language works237,207