Soil respiration in a fire scar chronosequence of Canadian boreal jack pine forest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. To fully understand the carbon (C) cycle impacts of forest fires, both C emissions during the fire and post-disturbance fluxes need to be considered. The latter are dominated by soil respiration (Rs), which is still subject to large uncertainties. This research investigates Rs in a boreal jack pine fire scar chronosequence at Sharpsand Creek, Ontario, Canada. During two field campaigns in 2006 and 2007, Rs was measured in a chronosequence of fire scars aged between 0 and 59 years since the last fire. Mean Rs per fire scar was adjusted for soil temperature (Ts) and soil moisture (Ms) (denoted RST,M). RST,M ranged from 0.56 μmol CO2/m2/s (32 years post fire) to 8.18 μmol CO2/m2/s (58 years post fire). The coefficient of variation (CV) of RST,M ranged from 20% (16 years post fire) to 56% (58 years post fire). Across the field site, there was a statistically highly significant exponential relationship between Rs adjusted for soil organic carbon (Cs) and Ts (P<0.00001; Q10=2.21) but no effect of Ms on Rs adjusted for Cs and Ts for the range 0.21 to 0.77 volumetric Ms (P=0.702). RST,M decreased significantly (P=0.030) after fire (4 to 8 days post fire) in mature forest, though no significant (P>0.1) difference could be detected between recently burned (4 to 8 days post fire) and unburned young forest. There were significant differences in RST,M between recently burned (4 to 8 days post fire) scar age categories that differed in their burn history, with between-fire intervals of 32 vs. 16 years (P<0.001) and 32 vs 59 years (P=0.044). There was a highly significant exponential increase in RST,M with time since fire (r2=0.999; P=0.006) for the chronosequence 0, 16 and 59 years post fire, and for all these age categories, RST,M was significantly different from one another (P<0.05). The results of this study contribute to a better quantitative understanding of Rs in boreal jack pine fire scars and will facilitate improvements in C cycle modelling. Further work is needed in quantifying autotrophic and heterotrophic contributions to Rs in jack pine systems; in monitoring Rs for extended time periods after fire; and in measuring different fire-prone forest types.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".