MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2079761180 · doi:10.1139/x08-022

Root dynamics in sprouting tanoak forests of southwestern Oregon

2008· article· en· W2079761180 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Glenn R. Ahrens, Michael Newton

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsChronosequenceShootBiomass (ecology)BiologyFagaceaeBotanyBiomass partitioningCoppicingHardwoodHorticulturePreharvestWoody plantAgronomyEcological successionPostharvest

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Root and shoot biomass were measured across an 8 year chronosequence in mature and regenerating stands of tanoak ( Lithocarpus densiflorus (Hook. & Arn.) Rehd.), following cutting and burning in mature tanoak forests. Tanoak stump sprouts rapidly replaced leaf biomass but did not maintain preexisting root systems. Rather, root biomass declined for several years, with the largest proportional decline in extra-fine roots. Four years after harvest, live root biomasses in diameter classes 0.25–2.00 and 0.25–5.00 mm were 25% and 30% of values in mature tanoak forests, respectively. The proportion of dead roots was strongly correlated with maximum summer soil temperature. Root/shoot ratios recovered to preharvest values by age 3–4 years, at which time the live biomass of fine roots and leaf biomass was approximately 30%–40% of values in mature forest. From age 4 to 8 years, stable root/shoot ratios were associated with a three- to four-fold reduction in growth rate of leaf biomass and a proportional increase in growth of fine roots. These findings support the general theory of a functional root–shoot balance in tanoak and suggest a possible role for soil temperature in postharvest root dynamics. Improved understanding of postdisturbance root and shoot dynamics in tanoak will help identify competitive interactions and priorities for vegetation management decisions in establishment of conifers following harvest of mixed conifer–hardwood forests of southwestern Oregon and northern California.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.083
Threshold uncertainty score0.165

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations6
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest Research→Same topicPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics→French-language works237,207→