Forest Soil Calcium Dynamics and Water Quality: Implications for Forest Management Planning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forest management planning is increasingly focused at the landscape scale. The resulting increase in planning unit size has fueled debate about forest sustainability, particularly at local scales. In boreal and temperate regions, Ca depletion in forest and aquatic ecosystems is a recently debated issue. Planning decisions that sustain forest soil and surface water Ca require identification of sites sensitive to Ca loss and application of silvicultural prescriptions that maintain background Ca pools and fluxes. Therefore, I synthesized data on forest Ca cycling and export and long-term (>10 yr) soil exchangeable Ca pools and changes in surface water quality. Findings indicated that hardwood forest soils contained over three-times more (P < 0.05), their catchments exported three-times more (P < 0.05), and through leaf-litter fall they recycled twice (p < 0.01) as much Ca as conifer–mixedwood forests. Nonetheless, over similar timeframes, forest floor in mature hardwood stands lost more (P < 0.05) Ca than did conifer–mixedwood soils, which was consistent with net stream and lake Ca losses (P < 0.01). However, surface water acid neutralizing capacity increased (P < 0.01), possibly due to greater sulfate declines relative to Ca. On average, based on soil concentrations and contents, forestry practices did not significantly deplete Ca in either cover type. Study results indicate that stand- and catchment-scale forest Ca pools and fluxes can be used to identify areas potentially sensitive to Ca depletion and water quality degradation. However, considerable variation exists in Ca and acidification responses to external stressors, limiting spatial and temporal projections.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".