Spatio-temporal Dynamics of Root Mass Density in a Coastal Dune in Subarctic Quebec, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On coastal dunes, both plant community composition and abiotic factors change along the foredune-established dune sequence. However, little is known about changes in belowground biomass, particularly in root mass, along such gradients. Yet, belowground plant structures are important for substrate cohesiveness and coastal dune integrity. Using soil cores, we determined the spatio-temporal dynamics of root mass density, from the embryo dunes to the stabilised dunes, on a coastal dune system in subarctic Quebec, Canada. Root mass density varied along the gradient, but it did not show a monotonic increase as observed in other studies. Roots were concentrated in the upper layer of the substrate (0-20 cm), except on the embryo dunes where most of the roots were found at 20-60 cm below the surface. Root mass density did not differ among the first three sampling dates (18 June, 07 July and 25 July), probably as a consequence of early root growth in the spring. However, root mass significantly decreased in August at all depths. Root mass density was not significantly correlated with soil water content, but it was correlated negatively with soil pH, and positively with total salts. Because root mass is concentrated near the substrate surface, subarctic coastal dunes may be particularly susceptible to human disturbance, such as trampling.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".