Chemistry and ectomycorrhizal communities of coarse wood in young and old-growth forests in the Cascade Range of Oregon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Coarse wood provides important ecosystem structure and function such as water and nutrient storage and critical habitat for the conservation of a variety of organisms, including ectomycorrhizal (EM) fungi. The chemistry and EM communities were compared in coarse wood samples collected from two advanced decay stages of logs in 12 paired young and old-growth stands in the Oregon Cascade Range. Average total C and nonpolar extractives were higher in young stands (15–55 years) (mean = 53.38%, 95% CI of 52.48–54.27 and mean = 8.54%, 95% CI of 6.92–10.16, respectively) compared with old-growth stands (200–500 years) (mean = 51.22%, 95% CI of 49.67–52.77 and mean = 6.75%, 95% CI of 5.88–7.62, respectively). Averages for total and extractable P were higher in old-growth stands (mean = 0.03%, 95% CI of 0.02–0.04 and mean = 82.91, 95% CI of 52.24–113.57, respectively) compared with young stands (mean = 0.02%, 95% CI of 0.02–0.02 and mean = 56.17, 95% CI of 45.84–66.50, respectively). Average pH and total N were highest in logs in the most advanced decay stage (mean = 4.17, 95% CI of 3.97–4.38 and mean = 0.35%, 95% CI of 0.29–0.40, respectively). No differences between log decay class or stand age were detected for water-soluble extractives, hemicellulose plus cellulose (or acid-hydrolyzable fraction), or acid-unhydrolyzable residue. Observed differences in average wood property values between decay stages and between young and old-growth stands were small and, although statistically significant, may not reflect an important difference in EM fungal habitat. EM communities were similar between young and old-growth stands and between logs in decay classes 4 and 5. Results suggest that down wood in advanced decay stages provides similar habitat for EM fungi in both old-growth and young, managed stands.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".