Fine root growth and mortality in different-aged ponderosa pine stands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Root minirhizotron tubes were installed at two sites around three different age classes of ponderosa pine ( Pinus ponderosa Dougl. ex Laws.) to follow patterns of fine root (≤2 mm diameter) dynamics during a 4 year study. Both sites were old-growth forests until 1978, when one site was clear-cut and allowed to regenerate naturally. The other site had both intermediate-aged trees (50–60 years) and old-growth trees (>250 years old). Estimates of fine root standing crop were greatest around young trees and least around intermediate-aged trees. Root production was highly synchronized in all age classes, showing a single peak in late May – early June each year. Root production and mortality were proportional to standing root crop (biomass), suggesting that allocation to new root growth was proportional to root density regardless of tree age. The turnover index (mortality/maximum standing crop) varied from 0.62 to 0.89·year–1, indicating root life spans in excess of 1 year. It appears that young ponderosa pine stands have greater rates of fine root production than older stands but lose more fine roots each year through mortality. The results indicate that soil carbon may accumulate faster in younger than in older stands.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".