Is wood pre‐treatment essential for tree‐ring nitrogen concentration and isotope analysis?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tree-ring nitrogen concentrations and isotope ratios (δ(15)N) are gaining in popularity for environmental research although their use is still debated because of nitrogen mobility in tree stems. Modern studies generally present results on wood that is pre-treated to remove soluble nitrogen compounds and to minimize the impact of radial translocation on tree-ring nitrogen environmental records. However, the necessity to use such pre-treatment has never been fully assessed. Here we compare the nitrogen concentrations and δ(15)N values of two wood preparation protocols applied to beech and red spruce tree rings for the removal of soluble compounds from ring pairs with non pre-treated tree rings. For both tree species, pre-treatment did not minimize the radial patterns of tree-ring nitrogen concentrations and the increasing concentration trends that are coincident with the heartwood-sapwood boundary. Therefore, even if the tree-ring nitrogen concentrations are slightly modified by pre-treatment, these concentrations are considered to reflect internal stem processes rather than environmental conditions in both species. The δ(15)N values were similar for untreated and pre-treated ring pairs, suggesting that wood pre-treatment did not substantially change the δ(15)N values and temporal trends in ring series. In addition, tree-ring δ(15)N series of untreated and pre-treated wood did not show any sign of influence of the heartwood-sapwood boundary in either tree species, indicating that nitrogen translocation did not generate significant isotopic fractionation. We therefore suggest that untreated ring δ(15)N values of beech and red spruce trees can be used for environmental research.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".