Comparison of soil respiration among three temperate forests in Changbai Mountains, China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CO2 efflux from forest soils is an important process in the global carbon cycle; however, effects of stand age and successional status remain uncertain. We compared soil respiration and its relationship to soil carbon content, forest floor mass, root biomass, soil temperature, and soil moisture content among three temperate forest ecosystems in Changbai Mountains, northeastern China, from 2003 to 2005. Forest types included an old-growth, mixed coniferous and broad-leaved primary forest (MN), a middle-aged, broad-leaved secondary forest (BL), and a young coniferous plantation forest (CP). Average annual soil CO2 efflux at BL (1477.9 ± 61.8 g C·m–2·year–1) was significantly higher than at CP (830.7 ± 48.7 g C·m–2·year–1) and MN (935.4 ± 53.3 g C·m–2·year–1). Differences in soil temperature among those sites were not statistically significant but contributed to the differences in annual CO2 efflux. In addition, the temperature response of soil CO2 efflux was higher at MN (Q10 = 2.78) than that at BL (Q10 = 2.17) and CP (Q10 = 2.02). Our results suggest that successional stage affects soil respiration by the differences in substrate quantity and quality, environmental conditions, and root respiration.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".