MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126333289 · doi:10.1093/aob/mcr259

Prediction of in situ root decomposition rates in an interspecific context from chemical and morphological traits

2011· article· en· W2126333289 on OpenAlexafffund
Maurice Aulen, Bill Shipley, Robert L. Bradley

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Botany · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsInterspecific competitionBiologyContext (archaeology)BotanyLigninDecompositionEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: We quantitatively relate in situ root decomposition rates of a wide range of trees and herbs used in agroforestry to root chemical and morphological traits in order to better describe carbon fluxes from roots to the soil carbon pool across a diverse group of plant species. METHODS: In situ root decomposition rates were measured over an entire year by an intact core method on ten tree and seven herb species typical of agroforestry systems and were quantified using decay constants (k values) from Olson's single exponential model. Decay constants were related to root chemical (total carbon, nitrogen, soluble carbon, cellulose, hemicellulose, lignin) and morphological (specific root length, specific root length) traits. Traits were measured for both absorbing and non-absorbing roots. KEY RESULTS: From 61 to 77 % of the variation in the different root traits and 63 % of that in root decomposition rates was interspecific. N was positively correlated, but total carbon and lignin were negatively correlated with k values. Initial root traits accounted for 75 % of the variation in interspecific decomposition rates using partial least squares regressions; partial slopes attributed to each trait were consistent with functional ecology expectations. CONCLUSIONS: Easily measured initial root traits can be used to predict rates of root decomposition in soils in an interspecific context.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.679
Threshold uncertainty score0.185

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations63
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of BotanySame topicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsFrench-language works237,207