MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116578305 · doi:10.1139/x99-194

Initial rates and limit values for decomposition of Scots pine and Norway spruce needle litter: a synthesis for N-fertilized forest stands

2000· article· en· W2116578305 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Björn Berg

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScots pinePicea abiesLitterHuman fertilizationAnimal scienceLigninHumusBotanyChemistryDecompositionPinus <genus>HorticultureAgronomyEcologyBiologySoil water

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nitrogen fertilization increased concentrations of N, P, S, and K in Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) needle litter, and in those of N, S, and Ca in Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.). Lignin concentrations increased for both species. Initial rates and limit values for decomposition were estimated using a simple equation. For Scots pine litter, initial rates ranged between 0.0618 and 0.2986%/day with P, K, N, and Mg being positively related, but lignin and Ca negatively related. For Norway spruce, initial rates were low (0.0455-0.1007%/day) and positively related with initial concentrations of water solubles, K, and P but negatively with N, Ca, and lignin. Limit values for Scots pine litter ranged from 53.1 to 94.3% decomposition in fertilized plots and from 71.5 to 93.2% in controls. They were negatively related to N concentrations and positively to Mn and Ca. Limit values for Norway spruce litter ranged from 53.8 to 74.3% in controls and from 48 to 71.3% in fertilized plots and were positively correlated to Mn and Ca but not to N. The paper concludes that N fertilization will increase the fraction of Scots pine litter that accumulates as humus but not for Norway spruce.

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 score0.028
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
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.272 · 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

Citations65
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsFrench-language works237,207