MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2142218896 · doi:10.1139/x09-194

Fine root decomposition in two subalpine forests during the freeze–thaw season

2010· article· en· W2142218896 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Fuzhong Wu, Wanqin Yang, Jian Zhang, Renju Deng

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrowing seasonBetula platyphyllaDecompositionNutrientMontane ecologyNutrient cycleSubalpine forestCyclingBotanyChemistryHorticultureAgronomyBiologyEcologyForestryGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Little is known about fine root decomposition during the freeze–thaw season. To characterize fine root decomposition during this time (from October 2006 to April 2007), a field experiment was conducted to examine the decomposition of fine roots (diameters of 0–1 and 1–2 mm) of Minjiang fir ( Abies faxoniana Rehd. & E.H. Wilson) and Asian white birch ( Betula platyphylla Sukaczev) using buried litterbags in their respective habitats in western Sichuan, China. Over one freeze–thaw season, 14%–20% of mass was lost and 12%–31% of C, 6%–36% of N, 15%–25% of P, and 37%–43% of K were released. These losses accounted for about 40%–55% of mass lost and 23%–54% of C, 23%–89% of N, 25%–42% of P, and 48%–58% of K released within the first year of fine root decomposition. The amount of mass loss and bioelements release during the freeze–thaw season correlated closely with initial substrate quality and bioelement traits. Compared with birch fine root, fir fine root decomposition could be influenced more by decomposition processes during the freeze–thaw season. Results suggest that fine root decomposition during the freeze–thaw season can strongly contribute to ecosystem C and nutrient cycling.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.152

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Citations15
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest Research→Same topicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics→French-language works237,207→