MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056703744 · doi:10.2980/21-1-3647

The influence of coarse woody debris on soil carbon and nutrient pools 15 years after clearcut harvesting in black spruce—dominated stands in northwestern Ontario, Canada

2014· article· en· W2056703744 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Scott A. Wiebe, Dave Morris, Nancy Luckai, Douglas E.B. Reid

Bibliographic record

VenueEcoscience · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicForest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Natural Resources and ForestryLakehead UniversitySt. Joseph's Care Group
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoarse woody debrisNutrientEnvironmental scienceNutrient cycleSoil carbonEcosystemSoil fertilityLoamAgronomyBiomass (ecology)Soil waterEcologySoil scienceBiologyHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study was designed as a log-scale examination of the influence that decomposing coarse woody debris (CWD in situ for 15 y following harvesting) had on soil carbon and nutrient levels. The study included 4 study sites representing 2 soil types: loamy tills versus sandy outwashes. The mature, fire-origin mixed conifer stands occupying these sites were clearcut harvested in 1994. In 2009, estimates of both total soil carbon and total and available nutrient pools were compared in locations under versus away from CWD. The presence of decaying CWD (now decay classes 3–4) significantly increased soil carbon (+85%) and nitrogen (+49%) pools. Estimates of inorganic N from a fresh soil 2M KCL extraction, however, were lower underneath the logs, suggesting that N immobilization is occurring as part of the decomposition process. In contrast, the presence of CWD had no significant effect on P, K, Ca, or Mg soil pools. Although there were marked differences in soil nutrient pools between the 2 soil types, the patterns associated with the presence of CWD were largely the same, and suggest that the influence of CWD does not extend beyond the bounds of the CWD. The results suggest that it will be important that biomass harvesting guidelines consider and include CWD retention levels to ensure that this important ecosystem component, with its associated functions (e.g., soil fertility, nutrient cycling), is maintained in harvested landscapes.

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 score0.123
Threshold uncertainty score0.144

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.174
Teacher spread0.167 · 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

Citations19
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcoscienceSame topicForest Ecology and Biodiversity StudiesFrench-language works237,207