MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2055913868 · doi:10.1139/x06-154

Assessing effects of forest management on microbial community structure in a central European beech forest

2006· article· en· W2055913868 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Susan J. Grayston, Heinz Rennenberg

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsBeechFagus sylvaticaThinningMicrobial population biologyBiomass (ecology)Basal areaAgronomySoil waterPopulationBiologyCommunity structureEnvironmental scienceForestryEcologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aimed to characterize the effects of forest management on soil microbial community structure and function in a European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) forest. We used community level physiological profiles, phospholipid fatty acid (PLFA) profiles, microbial biomass, culturing, and respiration approaches to quantify soil microbial community structure and activity at two sites in a naturally regenerated beech forest subjected to intermediate and heavy thinning and control (unthinned) in southern Germany. PLFA showed that the northeast-facing (NE) site contained significantly greater bacterial and fungal biomass than the southwest-facing (SW) site. Heavy thinning (tree basal area reduction from 27 to 10 m2·ha–1) significantly reduced microbial biomass in the NE site, measured using fumigation–extraction, but both bacterial and fungal biomass increased with thinning on the SW site. Soil microbial activity was significantly higher in the control plots of the NE compared with the SW site and was significantly reduced by heavy thinning, again only on the NE site. Our findings are consistent with our initial hypotheses that contrasting N uptake by beech on these two sites after thinning may relate to differences in the soil microbial biomass, population structure and function on the two sites.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations25
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest Research→Same topicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics→French-language works237,207→