MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Temporal heterogeneity of soil moisture in grassland and forest

2003· article· en· W2045539318 on OpenAlexafffund
Sarah E. James, Meelis Pärtel, Scott D. Wilson, Duane A. Peltzer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Ecology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGrasslandEnvironmental scienceWater contentShrublandGrowing seasonVegetation (pathology)Soil waterSpatial heterogeneityInterceptionVegetation typeAgronomyMoistureSoil scienceHabitatHydrology (agriculture)EcologyGeographyGeologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Differences between growth forms in the spatial heterogeneity of associated soil resources, such as water, are well‐documented. We tested for differences in the temporal heterogeneity of soil moisture between natural grassland, shrubland and Populus tremuloides forest at the northern edge of the Great Plains. Weekly measurements of soil moisture over a year, and daily measurements during a growing season, both showed significant interactions between habitat and time. Soils under grassland and shrubs were wettest at the start of the growing season but driest at the end. The coefficient of variation of soil moisture content over time during the growing season was significantly higher in grassland than in forest. Similar results were found for whole‐year measurements, and at two depths beneath the soil surface (10 and 30 cm). We found little interception of rainfall in any vegetation type. The net effect of vegetation on soil moisture during a drying period, however, was significantly greater in grassland than in forest, suggesting that differences in the temporal heterogeneity of soil moisture content are related to resource uptake.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.977

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations136
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of EcologySame topicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesFrench-language works237,207