MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Invasion by Fallopia japonica increases topsoil mineral nutrient concentrations

2007· article· en· W2133959209 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nicolas Dassonville, Sonia Vanderhoeven, Wolf Gruber, Pierre Meerts

Bibliographic record

VenueEcoscience · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotany and Plant Ecology Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNutrientTopsoilBiomass (ecology)AgronomyDominance (genetics)Soil fertilityEnvironmental scienceBiologyBotanyEcologySoil water

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fallopia japonica is one of the most troublesome alien invasive plants across temperate regions, with large negative impacts on plant species diversity. We examined its impacts on topsoil chemistry and nutrient stocks in standing biomass at 6 sites with contrasting resident plant communities in Belgium. Topsoil and biomass were sampled in invaded and closely adjacent uninvaded plots. Standing biomass and mineral nutrient concentrations in soil (ammonium acetate exchangeable cations and P, total C, and N) and plants were determined. Soil under F. japonica generally had higher exchangeable nutrient concentrations (Cu: 45%, K: 34%, Mg: 49%, Mn: 61%, P: 44%, Zn: 75%). Standing biomass was 3- to 13-fold higher depending on site. Despite lower nutrient concentrations in aboveground biomass, invaded stands had 3.2- to 5.4-fold larger nutrient stocks in aboveground biomass compared to the resident vegetation. We conclude that F. japonica enhances nutrient cycling rates and topsoil fertility, probably due to nutrient uplift. The impacts were greatest in sites with low nutrient concentrations in uninvaded plots, suggesting that F. japonica may contribute to soil homogenization in invaded landscapes.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations94
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcoscienceSame topicBotany and Plant Ecology StudiesFrench-language works237,207