Effects of harvesting on fine root biomass and decomposition in an Engelmann spruce subalpine fir forest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effect of timber harvesting on the biomass, nutrient standing crop, and decomposition of fine roots (<2 mm) was studied in a high elevation, Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii Parry ex Engelm.) subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa (Hook.) Nutt.) forest. Root dynamics were compared in openings of different sizes. The sequential core method was used to collect fine root samples over 4 years. Differences in fine root biomass between opening sizes were most significant for the active fine root portion and were most pronounced in the fall compared with the spring. Active fine root biomass was significantly lower in the 10-ha clearcuts (164 kg/ha) compared with control plots (275 kg/ha). Furthermore, active fine root biomass was often lower in the 1.0-ha opening than in the 0.1-ha and control plots. A similar trend was established for inactive fine root biomass, although this was not consistent over sampling years. Nutrient concentrations of K, but no other elements, were higher in control plots. Nutrient standing crops, however, followed trends observed in fine root biomass. In the 10-ha clearcuts, the largest changes in fine root biomass occurred at the edge of the opening. The findings suggest that small (<10 ha) cutblocks may maintain greater fine root longevity.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".