Effects of soil freezing on fine roots in a northern hardwood forest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We reduced early winter snowpack in four experimental plots at the Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest in New Hamphire for 2 years to examine the mechanisms of root injury associated with soil freezing. Three lines of evidence suggested that direct cellular damage, rather than physical damage associated with frost heaving, was the principal mechanism of root injury: (i) decreases in root vitality were not greater on sites with more frost heaving, (ii) in situ freezing damage was confined to first- and second-order roots in the organic horizons rather than entire root systems, and (iii) tensile strength of fine roots was not significantly compromised by experimental stretching to simulate ice lens formation. Although significant differences in the intensity of soil freezing (depth, rate, and minimum temperature) were observed across the plots, no clear effects of soil freezing intensity on root injury were observed. Snow manipulation had no effect on mycorrhizal colonization of sugar maple ( Acer saccharum Marsh.) roots. A significant increase in root growth was observed in the second summer after treatments, coincident with a significant pulse of soil nitrate leaching. Through their effects on fine roots, soil freezing events could play an important role in forest ecosystem dynamics in a changing climate.
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 | 0.001 | 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".