MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2164017741 · doi:10.1139/x04-040

Influence of initial chemistry on decomposition of foliar litter in contrasting forest types in British Columbia

2004· article· en· W2164017741 on OpenAlexfundvenueaboutno aff
Cindy E. Prescott, Lars Vesterdal, Caroline M. Preston, Suzanne W. Simard

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsLitterLigninChemistryDecompositionNutrientAnimal scienceEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We compare rates of decay of foliar litters of British Columbia tree species in two field studies, and assess which initial litter chemistry parameters best predict the decay rates. Nutrient concentrations, tannins, and carbon fractions (based on proximate analysis and nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy) were measured in fresh litter of 14 tree species in one experiment and seven species in a second experiment. Each study was replicated in a different site in order to assess the transferability of results. Broadleaf litters decayed faster than needle litters only during the first year; thereafter, they decayed slower. Lignin concentration was a good predictor of mass loss only during the first year and only in one of the two experiments, which may have resulted from all foliar litters having high lignin concentrations (>170 mg·kg –1 ). Litter chemistry effects on first-year decay were consistent and transferable among sites. None of the initial litter chemistry parameters were good predictors of mass remaining after 4 or 5 years, because mass loss of most litters was similar by this time. The convergence in mass losses of litters after 4–5 years despite initial differences indicates that decomposition estimates extrapolated from early rates or initial chemistry may not accurately predict long-term decay.

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)0.000
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 score0.688
Threshold uncertainty score0.725

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Citations105
Published2004
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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