MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2045044992 · doi:10.1139/b02-049

Use of a weighing lysimeter system to assess the effects of trampling on evapotranspiration of montane plant communities

2002· article· en· W2045044992 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
D. Andrew Scott, N. Bayfield, Alexander Cernusca, David A. Elston

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Botany · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotany and Plant Ecology Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTramplingLysimeterEvapotranspirationVegetation (pathology)Environmental scienceGrasslandFestuca rubraPlant communityEcologyEcological successionGrazingSoil waterBiologySoil science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim was to investigate the impacts of trampling on water loss and partitioning in vegetation with contrasting structure and species composition. A new design of weighing lysimeter was used in glasshouse experiments to compare evapotranspiration from intact and trampled blocks of vegetation. The lysimeter system was able to detect differences between treatments after only a few hours. Evapotranspiration was recorded for six communities, representative of cryptogam - vascular plant communities found in the Cairngorm Mountains of Scotland. Vegetation blocks of Racomitrium and Vaccinium/Hylocomium heath communities had the greatest cumulative evapotranspiration and lichen heath the least over 48 h. Blocks from three of the communities (Agrostis/Festuca grassland, Calluna wet heath, and lichen heath) were used in a trampling experiment with five levels of damage. Trampling progressively destroyed the structure of the vegetation of all communities and increased the rates of water loss from the blocks. The grassland community vegetation was the most resilient. These results help to link the massive changes in vegetation structure resulting from trampling to effects on water loss and microclimate.Key words: weighing lysimeter, evapotranspiration, recreation, trampling, cryptogams, montane vegetation.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.701
Threshold uncertainty score0.914

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.119 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations10
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of BotanySame topicBotany and Plant Ecology StudiesFrench-language works237,207