Effects of forest floor organic layer and root biomass on soil respiration following boreal forest fire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Soil respiration and its spatial and temporal variation were studied at three boreal forest sites in central Saskatchewan, Canada, burned in 1998, 1989, and 1977. Soil respiration, soil temperature, and organic layer thickness were measured at 100 points in a grid pattern of 2 m × 2 m at each site in 2004 and 2005. The mean within-site spatial coefficient of variation was 35%, and the measurements were not spatially autocorrelated. We found no significant difference in variance between the two youngest sites (P > 0.05), whereas the older site showed significantly lower variance (P < 0.05). Soil respiration was not correlated with the forest floor organic layer thickness at any of the sites (R2 < 0.1). Removal of the forest floor layer reduced the soil respiration by 17% to 38%, depending on the site. Thus, the respiration from the mineral soil seemed to contribute a major fraction of the total soil respiration (62%–83%). Soil respiration was positively linearly related to the fine root biomass (R2 = 0.63–0.85, P < 0.05) at all sites. We conclude that variation in root biomass has a larger effect than differential forest floor organic layers on variation in soil respiration in young boreal postfire forests.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".