MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158283068 · doi:10.1139/x07-144

Mass loss and nutrient dynamics of coarse woody debris in three Rocky Mountain coniferous forests: 21 year results

2008· article· en· W2158283068 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Steffen Herrmann, Cindy E. Prescott

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicForest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsPinus contortaAbies lasiocarpaCoarse woody debrisPicea engelmanniiSubalpine forestBotanyThinningEnvironmental scienceForestryMontane ecologyHorticultureBiologyEcologyGeographyHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mass loss and changes in C, N, and P concentrations were measured in 20 cm long log segments of lodgepole pine ( Pinus contorta Dougl. ex Loud.), white spruce ( Picea glauca (Moench) Voss), and subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa (Hook.) Nutt.) that had been placed in three Rocky Mountain coniferous forests 21 years earlier. Pine, spruce, and fir lost 76%, 39%, and 64%, respectively, of their initial mass during the 21 years. The corresponding mean decay rates (k) were 0.072, 0.024 and 0.052·year–1. The decay patterns of pine and spruce were similar with the highest k between 6 and 14 years. Fir k increased during the course of decomposition with the highest rate between 14 and 21 years. The correlation between original dry mass and k was negative for pine (r = –0.28), positive for fir (r = 0.35), and not significant for spruce. C/N, C/P, and N/P ratios declined and converged to a similar value in relation to mass loss for all three species. The N/P ratios of logs of all three species stabilized at about 19. These findings indicate that patterns of wood decay are difficult to predict (even with 14 year data), and so models that incorporate wood-decay estimates will be associated with considerable uncertainty.

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)0.001
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations42
Published2008
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicForest Ecology and Biodiversity StudiesFrench-language works237,207