SOME CONTROLS ON THE RELEASE OF DISSOLVED ORGANIC CARBON BY PLANT TISSUES AND SOILS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Soil and plant tissues were used to examine the effect on the release of dissolved organic carbon (DOC) of rinsing over time at two temperatures and under oxic and anoxic conditions in a laboratory incubation. The release of DOC over 60 days of incubation ranged from 0.5 to 189 mg DOC g−1 oven-dry material and was correlated inversely with the degree of decomposition of the material: fresh maple leaves > old maple leaves > Sphagnum moss > fibric peat > hemic peat = sapric peat > Inceptisol A horizon. Rates of DOC release were similar through the duration of the experiment, except for the fresh maple leaves, where release rates fell after 3 day. Rinsing, by the replacement of water in the incubating samples after 20 day, produced slower rates of DOC release, except in the Inceptisol A and sapric peat samples. There was no significant difference between DOC release under oxic and anoxic conditions, except for the Inceptisol A soil, where DOC release was greater under anoxic than under oxic conditions. The rate of DOC release at 22 °C was an average of 2.4 times greater than at 4 °C, translating into Q10 values of about 1.6. At 22 °C under oxic conditions, DOC production accounted for 14 to 58% (average 24%) of the total C released as DOC + CO2, with the highest proportion in the maple leaves. Under anoxic conditions, DOC production accounted for 63 to 95% (average 82%) of the total C released as DOC + CO2 + CH4. Production of CH4 under anoxic conditions was minor, accounting for <1% of the total C released. Under oxic conditions at 22 °C, the incubations released between 2 and 107% of the organic C contained in the samples, the largest proportion of which was released from the plant tissues. Microbial utilization of DOC meant that some C was double-counted, both as DOC and as subsequently emitted CO2. Under anoxic conditions, 0.0 to 49% of the sample organic C was mineralized. The release of DOC represents the balance between production, adsorption, and desorption and microbial utilization. This release differs clearly among samples and among treatment effects.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".