MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2112587523 · doi:10.1139/x08-204

Impacts of repeated fertilization on fine roots, mycorrhizas, mesofauna, and soil chemistry under young interior spruce in central British Columbia

2009· article· en· W2112587523 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Shannon M. Berch, R. P. Brockley, Jeff Battigelli, Shannon Hagerman

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
Canadian institutionsGovernment of British ColumbiaUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoil mesofaunaPinus contortaFertilizerForest floorHuman fertilizationPhosphorusAgronomySoil biologyOribatidaBotanyBiologyChemistryHorticultureEcologyEcosystemSoil waterAcari

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We assessed soil biota and soil chemistry in a 20-year-old interior spruce ( Picea glauca × engelmannii) stand in the interior of British Columbia 10 years after initiation of annual fertilization. Treatments included an unfertilized control, ON1 (having received per hectare 800 kg nitrogen (N), 350 kg phosphorus (P), 400 kg potassium (K)), and ON2 (having received per hectare 1400 kg N, 350 kg P, 400 kg K). Micronutrients were added periodically. There was more mineralizable N and NO3-N in the forest floor and upper mineral soil of ON2 plots than in the controls or ON1. Forest floor NH4-N increased with each level of fertilizer application. Total forest floor N, total sulphur, and exchangeable magnesium were higher with both levels of fertilization than with the unfertilized control. For the forest floor, available P and exchangeable K were highest in ON1. Forest floor densities of Acari, Prostigmata, and Oribatida were greater in fertilized plots than unfertilized control plots. In mineral soil, only Oribatida increased significantly with fertilization. Fertilization increased fine root length in ON1 relative to the control and ON2, but ectomycorrhizal colonization did not differ among treatments. These results contrast with previously reported responses to similar fertilizer treatments under lodgepole pine ( Pinus contorta Dougl. ex Loud. var. latifolia Engelm.) in which negative responses of fine roots and soil biota to repeated nutrient additions were observed.

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 score0.148
Threshold uncertainty score0.298

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations12
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest Research→Same topicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics→French-language works237,207→