MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2038273965 · doi:10.2136/sssaj2003.1544

Natural Isotopic Distribution in Soil Surface Horizons Differentiated by Vegetation

2003· article· en· W2038273965 on OpenAlexaff
Sylvie A. Quideau, Robert C. Graham, X. Feng, Oliver A. Chadwick

Bibliographic record

VenueSoil Science Society of America Journal · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSiltSoil waterChemistryLitterOrganic matterPlant litterEnvironmental chemistryFractionationVegetation (pathology)Soil horizonSoil organic matterSoil scienceEnvironmental scienceGeologyAgronomyBiologyNutrientChromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The isotopic composition of soil organic matter (SOM) is a useful tool for deciphering the different mechanisms underlying decomposition processes in soils. The objective of this study was to quantify the influence of oak ( Quercus dumosa Nutt.) and pine ( Pinus coulteri D. Don) vegetation on the isotopic variation occurring during decomposition by measuring δ 13 C and δ 15 N in selected litter and soil fractions. Soil samples obtained from A horizons of two lysimeter soils were separated by density and mineral size to isolate the floatable, fine silt, and clay fractions. These fractions as well as the litter samples were subjected to sequential chemical extractions to differentiate between polar and nonpolar extractives, acid‐soluble carbohydrates, and acid‐insoluble residues. The physical fractions varied by up to 3.5‰ for δ 13 C and 4.7‰ for δ 15 N, while acid‐insoluble residues were depleted by 0.9 to 2.1‰ δ 13 C as compared with the samples before extraction. Under oak, 13 C and 15 N content progressively increased from the litter to the floatable, fine silt, and clay fractions (by 4.7‰ for δ 13 C and 4.9‰ for δ 15 N). By comparison, under pine, enrichment of the clay fraction was 1.7‰ for δ 13 C and 1.7‰ for δ 15 N as compared with the initial litter. The greater enrichment in heavy isotopes under oak vegetation as compared with the pine could not be explained based on differences in litter inputs. Results suggested instead that variation in decomposition processes by vegetation type caused the differences in heavy isotope enrichment.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.832
Threshold uncertainty score0.292

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.208 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations36
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSoil Science Society of America JournalSame topicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsFrench-language works237,207