Does thinning affect litterfall, litter decomposition, and associated nutrient release in<i>Acacia mangium</i>stands of Kerala in peninsular India?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Litter plays a vital role in the nutrient cycling of plantations and agroforests. Silvicultural interventions can alter litter production and decay rates, thereby varying nutrient fluxes. We evaluated the effect of various thinning densities on litter dynamics of 9-year-old Acacia mangium Willd. stands. To quantify litterfall, we placed traps at four random grid points in 24 plots in which none, one-third, one-half, or two-thirds of stems had been removed. In each plot, 48 litterbags were also placed to evaluate litter decay. Annual litterfall ranged from 5.73 (two-thirds thinning) to 11.18 Mg·ha −1 (unthinned) and showed a significant linear relationship to basal area (p < 0.0001). Nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and potassium (K) concentrations were highest during the wet season, when litterfall production was low, implying an inverse relationship between litterfall quality and quantity. The highest annual N, P, and K additions (82.9, 3.3, and 71.9 kg·ha −1 , respectively) occurred in the unthinned stands. High thinning intensities resulted in accelerated decay rates, which we attribute to changes in microenvironment. Soil N concentrations were highest in the one-half thinning treatment, followed by the two-thirds treatment, signifying a trade-off between litterfall production and decay. The highest soil organic C concentrations were in the unthinned stands, reflecting the potential of high stand densities for promoting C sequestration.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".