MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2120981889 · doi:10.1139/x07-232

Variation in soil microbial communities across a boreal spruce forest landscape

2008· article· en· W2120981889 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lisbet Holm Bach, Åsa Frostegård, Mikael Ohlson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNorges Forskningsråd
KeywordsTaigaCommunity structureSpatial variabilityMicrobial population biologyVegetation (pathology)Environmental scienceBiomass (ecology)EcologyBorealPlant communityForestryBiologySoil scienceGeographyMathematicsSpecies richness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigated soil microbial community structure by phospholipid fatty acid (PLFA) analysis in a mature boreal spruce forest landscape in southern Norway, with low diversity of vascular plants. We investigated the spatial variation in PLFAs and the importance of environmental variables in 10 plots (each 13 samples) in a study area of 1 km × 1 km. The scales investigated were 15 cm to 10 m within study plots and 100 m to 1 km between study plots. Soil microbial biomass varied 10-fold and we found a large variation in microbial community structure, even at distances of 15 cm. Samples aggregated into plots when PLFAs were subjected to a principal components analysis. Plot identity explained 36.3% of the variation in the PLFAs and geostatistical analysis showed that the microbial community structure displayed spatial dependence at within-plot distances. Environmental variables differed significantly between all plots but explained only minor parts of the variation in the overall PLFA pattern. The vegetation variables were, however, the best at explaining the PLFA pattern, and up to 60% of within-plot variation in individual plots, respectively, could be explained by vegetation variables, pH, and soil depth.

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)0.001
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 score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations23
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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