Soil CO<sub>2</sub>evolution and root respiration in 11 year-old loblolly pine (<i>Pinus taeda</i>) plantations as affected by moisture and nutrient availability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We measured soil CO 2 evolution rates with (S ff ) and without (S ms ) the forest floor litter and root respiration monthly in 11-year-old loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) plantations during the fourth year of fertilization and irrigation treatments. Values of S ff ranged from less than 1 µmol·m -2 ·s -1 during the winter to greater than 5 µmol·m -2 ·s -1 in late spring. Average S ff was significantly greater in unfertilized relative to the fertilized stands; however, there was no difference in average S ms among treatments. Soil temperature and the mass of the forest floor (litter) explained most of the difference in S ff among treatments. Soil temperature and volumetric water content accounted for 70% of the seasonal variation in S ff . Annual carbon efflux from the soil averaged 14.1 Mg·ha -1 per year for all treatments. Most of the evolved carbon was derived from root respiration (50-73%). Net ecosystem productivity was -1.1 and 6.9 Mg C·ha -1 per year for the unfertilized and fertilized stands, respectively. At age 11, the unfertilized stands were functioning as a net carbon source, while fertilized stands were a strong carbon sink. It was concluded that fertilization could decrease the time for a young pine plantation to change from a carbon source to a carbon sink.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".