MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158681886 · doi:10.1139/x06-153

Long-term thinning effects on the forest floor and the foliar nutrient status of Norway spruce stands in the Belgian Ardennes

2006· article· en· W2158681886 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mathieu Jonard, Laurent Misson, Quentin Ponette

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Forest Service
KeywordsThinningForest floorPicea abiesNutrientAnimal scienceKarstEnvironmental scienceHorticultureBotanyChemistryForestrySoil waterBiologyEcologySoil scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The long-term impact (30 years) of three contrasting thinning programs (unthinned, moderately thinned, and heavily thinned) on selected forest-floor properties and on the foliar nutrient status of Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) stands (46, 50, and 67 years old) was evaluated at three sites on acid soils in the Belgian Ardennes. Sampling involved needles (current-year, 1-year-old, and recently fallen) and soil organic layers (OL, OF, OH, OA). For all samples, dry mass and element concentrations (C, N, P, Ca, Mg, K, Na, Mn, Al, Fe) were determined. Linear mixed models were used to analyze these data and showed that forest-floor mass was negatively affected by thinning (p = 0.0003) and that the N concentration in the forest floor increased with thinning intensity (p = 0.0008), while its Mn concentration decreased (p < 0.0001). The N, P, and K concentrations in the current-year needles were decreased by thinning (p < 0.05), while the Ca, Mg, and Na concentrations were not affected. We hypothesize that thinning negatively affected N, P, and K nutrition by removing the nutrients contained in the thinned trees and by decreasing the forest-floor thickness, thus reducing its nutrient contents and its ability to support root growth.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.610
Threshold uncertainty score0.983

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Citations43
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicForest ecology and managementFrench-language works237,207