Litter fall in some European coniferous forests as dependent on climate: a synthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Litter fall data was available for 64 sites in Europe, most of them in Fennoscandia. Included were 48 sites with pine (Pinus spp.), mainly Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.), and 16 sites with spruce (Picea spp.), mainly Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.). Regressions were calculated for needle and total litter fall against a set of climatic parameters, and the best simple relationships were obtained with annual actual evapotranspiration (AET) and other parameters including temperature, whereas for example, precipitation gave lower r values. For needle litter fall and AET using all data, the R 2 adj value was 0.635 (n = 64), and for needle litter for pine and spruce separately, the R 2 adj were 0.576 (n = 48) and 0.775 (n = 16), respectively. AET plus stand age gave highly significant relationships for both coniferous genera combined (R 2 adj = 0.683), and for pine and spruce separately the corresponding values were 0.655 and 0.843, respectively. Using all available data we found highly significant relationships between needle litter fall and total litter fall. For Fennoscandia, litter fall for Scots pine and Norway spruce were compared. AET versus needle litter fall gave highly significant relationships for Scots pine (R 2 adj = 0.448, n = 34) and for Norway spruce (R 2 adj = 0.678, n = 13); the relationships were significantly different from each other.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".