Seasonal and annual changes in soil respiration in relation to soil temperature, water potential and trenching
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Soil respiration (rs), soil temperature (Ts) and volumetric soil water content were measured in a balsam fir (Abies balsamea (L.) Mill.) ecosystem from 1998 to 2001. Seasonal variation in root and microbial respiration, and covariation in abiotic factors confounded interpretation of the effects of Ts and soil water potential (Psis) on rs. To minimize the confounding effect of temperature, we analyzed the effect of Psis on rs during the summers of 1998-2000 when changes in Ts were slight. Soil respiration declined 25-50% in response to modest water stress (minimum Psis of -0.6 to -0.2 MPa), and between years, there was substantial variation in the relationship between rs and Psis. In the summer of 2000, 2-m2 plots were subjected to drought for 1 month and other plots were irrigated. The relationship between summertime rs and Psis in the experimental plots was similar to that estimated from the survey data obtained during the same summer. In late spring and early autumn of 2001, 2-m2 trenched and untrenched plots were subjected to drought or exposed to rainfall. It was dry in the early autumn and there was severe soil drying (Psis of -10 MPa in untrenched plots and -2 MPa in trenched plots). In spring, rs in untrenched plots responded more to modest water stress than rs in trenched plots, indicating that root respiration is more sensitive than microbial respiration to water stress at this time of year. The response to abiotic factors differed significantly between spring and autumn in untrenched plots but not in trenched plots, indicating that root activity was greater in early autumn than in late spring, and that roots acclimated to the sustained, severe water stress experienced before and during the autumn.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".