MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056705410 · doi:10.2134/jeq2002.1993

Soil and Tree‐Ring Chemistry Response to Liming in a Sugar Maple Stand

2002· article· en· W2056705410 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel Houle, Louis Duchesne, Jean‐David Moore, Marc Richer Laflèche, Rock Ouimet

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Quality · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche ScientifiqueMinistère des Ressources naturelles et des Forêts
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLimeXylemChemistryCation-exchange capacityMapleSoil waterHumusSugarSoil pHEnvironmental chemistryBotanySoil scienceGeologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An evaluation of the impact of dolomitic lime [CaMg(CO3)2] on soils (five years after treatment) and sapwood chemistry (after four growing seasons) was realized for a Ca-deficient sugar maple stand at the lake Clair watershed. The effect on humus chemistry was significant: exchangeable Mg and Ca, effective acidity (EA), base saturation (BSe), pH, and effective cation exchange capacity (CECe) significantly increased, while exchangeable Fe significantly decreased. In the B horizon, liming increased exchangeable Ca, Mg, and Mn concentrations while decreasing other acid cations. No significant temporal trends in element concentrations in tree rings could be detected, although the lime treatment significantly changed the average xylem Mg and Mn concentrations as well as the average Mg/Mn and Ca/Mn ratios of the sapwood. The absence of temporal trends in rings from the last 20 yr implied a significant re-equilibration of elements through the sapwood. Significant relationships were found between averaged xylem Ca/Mn and Mg/Mn ratios and exchangeable humus Ca, Mg, Mn, Al, Fe, and H+ concentration, EA, CECe, and BSe, suggesting that the average xylem Ca/Mn and Mg/Mn ratios are strong indicators of the soil acid-base status.

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)0.001
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 score0.915
Threshold uncertainty score0.291

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations36
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental QualitySame topicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsFrench-language works237,207