MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2079978450 · doi:10.1139/x2012-133

Moving towards carbon neutrality: CO<sub>2</sub> exchange of a black spruce forest ecosystem during the first 10 years of recovery after harvest

2012· article· en· W2079978450 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Carole Coursolle, Marc‐André Giasson, Hank A. Margolis, Pierre Y. Bernier

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlack spruceEcosystem respirationEnvironmental scienceBoreal ecosystemEcosystemEddy covarianceTaigaProductivityAtmospheric sciencesEvergreenBorealForestryEcologyBiologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Disturbances control the landscape-level C dynamics of boreal forests, but post-disturbance C dynamics are usually poorly quantified. In the current study, we use 10 years of CO2 flux measurements at a boreal black spruce ( Picea mariana (Mill.) B.S.P.) cutover in eastern Canada to estimate time to C neutrality, quantify the relative role of respiration versus photosynthesis during recovery, and determine the agreement between cumulated CO2 fluxes and plot-level changes in C content. The site was a net source of 139 g C·m–2·year–1 2 years post-harvest, dropped further to a source of 173 g C·m–2·year–1 4 years post-harvest, following a scarification treatment, and was nearly C neutral 10 years post-harvest. Gross ecosystem productivity (GEP) increased by 50 g C·m–2·year–1 post-scarification, while ecosystem respiration (ER) increased by only 23 g C·m–2·year–1. The resulting net rate of increase of 27 g C·m–2·year–1 in net ecosystem productivity was driven by changes in increasing leaf area. In fact, vegetation regrowth had a much greater impact on annual fluxes than did interannual variability in climate. Biometric-based measurements of total C losses after harvest were in relatively good agreement with eddy-covariance-based estimates 8 years after the harvest.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.972
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations20
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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