MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2147928661 · doi:10.1139/x03-152

Effect of gap size on litter decomposition and soil nitrate concentrations in a high-elevation sprucefir forest

2003· article· en· W2147928661 on OpenAlexfundvenueno aff
Cindy E. Prescott, Graeme D. Hope, Leandra L Blevins

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Saskatchewan
KeywordsAbies lasiocarpaForest floorPicea engelmanniiLitterEnvironmental scienceNitrateClearcuttingPlant litterPicea abiesAgronomyForest ecologyAlpine climateSoil waterEcosystemForestryEcologySoil scienceBiologyMontane ecologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Possible mitigation of nitrate losses associated with clearcuts through harvesting smaller gaps was tested in a high-elevation forest of Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii Parry ex Engelm.) and subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa (Hook.) Nutt.). We measured concentrations of ammonium and nitrate after 6-week buried bag incubations of forest floor and mineral soil samples in replicated plots of uncut forest and gaps of 10, 1.0, and 0.1 ha and single-tree removal for 7 years after harvest. Nitrate concentrations in forest floor and mineral soil were elevated 3–7 years after harvesting in gaps of 0.1 ha and larger. Removal of the same proportion of trees as single trees did not result in increased nitrate concentrations, suggesting that nitrate losses could be reduced by harvesting single trees rather than creating gaps. Greater N availability was not associated with faster rates of decomposition of litter and forest floor, which were similar in gaps of all sizes (0–10 ha). Reciprocal transplant of forest floor and soil from the 10-ha gaps and the uncut forests indicated that changes in the nature of the forest floor or soil following harvest had a greater influence on nitrate concentrations than the changes in environmental conditions in the gaps.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.414
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 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

Citations118
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsFrench-language works237,207