MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2134156851 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2014-0221

In situ decomposition of northern hardwood tree boles: decay rates and nutrient dynamics in wood and bark

2014· article· en· W2134156851 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Chris E. Johnson, Thomas G. Siccama, Ellen G. Denny, Mary Margaret Koppers, Daniel J. Vogt

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicForest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Forest ServiceNational Science Foundation
KeywordsYellow birchBeechAceraceaeNutrientHardwoodEnvironmental scienceCoarse woody debrisMapleBark (sound)BotanyNutrient cycleChemistryEcologyHorticultureBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The decomposition of coarse woody debris contributes to forest nutrient sustainability and carbon (C) balances, yet few field studies have been undertaken to investigate these relationships in northern hardwood forests. We used a paired-sample approach to study the decomposition of sugar maple (Acer saccharum Marsh.), American beech (Fagus grandifolia Erhr.), and yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis Britt.) boles at the Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest in New Hampshire. Mass loss over 16 years followed a first-order exponential decay pattern with half-lives ranging from 4.9 to 9.4 years in bark and from 7.3 to 10.9 years in wood. Nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) concentrations increased significantly during decomposition, resulting in sharp decreases in C:N and C:P ratios. We did not, however, observe significant net increases in the amount of N or P stored in decomposing boles, as reported in some other studies. Calcium (Ca) concentration decreased by up to 50% in bark but more than doubled in wood of all species. The retention of Ca in decomposing wood helps maintain Ca pools in this base-poor ecosystem. Together, the exponential model for mass loss and a combined power-exponential model for changes in nutrient concentrations were able to simulate nutrient dynamics in decomposing boles after clear-cutting in an adjacent watershed.

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 score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.090

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 communication0.0010.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations47
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicForest Ecology and Biodiversity StudiesFrench-language works237,207