The influence of red alder patches on light, litterfall, and soil nutrients in adjacent conifer stands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To evaluate the distance over which red alder patches influence adjacent conifer stands, we measured light transmission and nutrient contents of soil and litterfall along transects crossing the boundary between alder and conifer stands at three sites (1015, 2025, and [Formula: see text]40 years old) in coastal British Columbia. Light levels were higher in the understory of alder stands than in adjacent conifer stands. In simulated openings, light levels rapidly increased with distance from the alder edge, reaching 60% of full sunlight at south-facing edges, 5 m from north-facing edges, and 23 m from east- and west-facing edges. Soil N, NH4-N, NO3-N, and mineralizable N remained elevated for about 10 m from the alder boundary. Nitrogen contents of Douglas-fir seedlings grown in soil from the alder stand were elevated and correlated to soil N concentrations. Nutrient inputs in alder litterfall were positively related to concentrations of total C; total, extractable, and mineralizable N in soils; and the N, P, and B concentrations of seedlings. Alder litterfall drift extended 818 m into adjacent conifer stands. The optimal arrangement for alderconifer mixtures would be alder patches or strips at least 10 m wide and about 20 m apart oriented north to south.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 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".