MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2067882742 · doi:10.2136/sssaj2002.8450

Maize root‐induced change in soil organic carbon pools

2002· article· en· W2067882742 on OpenAlexaff
Biqing Liang, X. L. Wang, B. L.

Bibliographic record

VenueSoil Science Society of America Journal · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLoamSoil carbonBiomass (ecology)AgronomyTotal organic carbonSoil waterEnvironmental scienceChemistryGrowing seasonEnvironmental chemistryHorticultureSoil scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quantification of root or root‐induced changes in soil organic C (SOC), water‐soluble organic C (WSOC), and microbial biomass C (MBC) is important for understanding processes of soil C storage. A greenhouse study was conducted on a Bainsville loamy sand (Typic Hapludoll) to evaluate root or root‐induced quantitative and compositional changes in various SOC pools by growing corn ( Zea mays L.), a C 4 plant, on a historically C 3 soil. Significant shifts in 13 C of SOC pools, most noticeably in WSOC and MBC were observed. During the course of a growing season, the proportion of C 4 ‐derived C varied from 0 to 12.3% of whole SOC, from 0 to 30.7% of WSOC, and from 0 to 52% of MBC, indicating a major contribution of root or root‐induced C to various soil C components, especially WSOC and MBC. The amount of C 4 ‐derived C in the entire soil estimated by the 13 C natural abundance (δ 13 C) was remarkably consistent with the amount of C 4 ‐C retained in the soil microbial biomass, WSOC, and corn roots, suggesting that measurements of 13 C of the entire soil following the shift of C 3 to C 4 plants can be used as an indirect measure of root or root‐induced C pools during the growing period.

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 score0.747
Threshold uncertainty score0.658

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.238
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations57
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSoil Science Society of America JournalSame topicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsFrench-language works237,207