Estimating fine root longevity in a temperate Norway spruce forest using three independent methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
C) analyses in a temperate Norway spruce [Picea abies (L.) Karst.] forest. In addition, we applied sequential soil coring and minirhizotron observations to estimate fine root longevity in the organic layer of the same stand. The mean radiocarbon age of C in fine roots increased with depth from 5 years in the organic layer to 13 years in 40-60 cm mineral soil depth. Similarly, the C/N ratios of fine root samples were lowest in the organic layer with a mean value of 24 and increased with soil depth. Roots >0.5 mm in diameter tended to live longer than those being <0.5 mm in diameter. By far the strongest variability in fine root longevity estimates was due to the chosen method of investigation, with radiocarbon analyses yielding much higher estimates (5.4 years) than sequential soil coring (0.9 years) and minirhizotron observations (0.7 years). We conclude that sequential soil coring and minirhizotron observations are likely to underestimate mean fine root longevity, and radiocarbon analyses may lead to an overestimation of mean root longevity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".