Base cation mineral weathering and total release rates from soils in three calibrated forest watersheds on the Canadian Boreal Shield
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Total release rates of base cations (Ca, Mg, K, and Na) from soils and from watersheds were evaluated using three methods. Three methods, one of which is new, were also used to evaluate mineral weathering rates of soils for three calibrated forest watersheds in the forest ministry’s monitoring network (Réseau d’étude et de surveillance des eco ystems forestiers: Quebec Forest Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Network; RESEF) on the Canadian Boreal Shield. We also compiled an extensive literature review of forest soil base cation release rates, focussed on northeastern North American forest soils of granitic lithology. With the exception of the total release and mineral weathering of Ca from soils at the Lake Laflamme Watershed site, and the total release of K from the three watersheds, soils and watershed release rates for the three watersheds were within the confidence interval of release rates compiled for forest ecosystems with similar granitic environment (compiled data for solum [mmol (+) m -2 yr -1 ± 95% CI], Ca: 33.8 ± 16.3, Mg: 16.8 ± 4.2, K: 13.0 ± 5.6, Na: 11.1 ± 3.0, and sum of base cations (BC): 61.2 ± 11.0; compiled data from watersheds, Ca: 82.8 ± 24.6, Mg: 50.8 ± 17.0, K: 7.8 ± 2.2, Na: 44.7 ± 12.8, and BC: 186.0 ± 49.9). Given the uncertainties associated with the calculations, there was little overall difference between total release rates and weathering release rates from soils for two of the three watersheds. Key words: Weathering rate, forest soil, granitic environment, watershed, PMB method, compositional trends
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".