Soil CO<sub>2</sub> efflux and root respiration at three sites in a mixed pine and spruce forest: seasonal and diurnal variation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Soil CO2 efflux and respiration of excised roots were measured with a LI-COR 6200 at three sites in a mixed forest (60°05'N, 17°3'E), from May to October 1999, both day and night. Fine-root (<5 mm in diameter) respiration was measured at ambient root temperature and soil CO2 partial pressure, and the roots were analysed for nitrogen (N) concentration. Root-density data obtained from soil cores were used to estimate fine-root biomass. Coarse-root respiration was estimated using stand data, literature data, and allometric relationships. Soil CO2 efflux, 3.07.0 µmol·m2·s1, differed between sites but showed no diurnal variation. Maximum values were obtained in July through August. Fine-root respiration, 0.34.7 nmol·g1·s1, decreased after peaking in early July and showed no diurnal variation. The seasonal mean was lowest at the South site, where also root distribution patterns were different and root N concentrations were lower. Fine-root respiration increased with root N concentration; however, the relationship was very weak, since the variation in root N concentration between sites and times of year was small. Both soil CO2 efflux and fine-root respiration increased exponentially with soil and root temperature, respectively, although fine-root respiration was twice as sensitive. The percentage of soil CO2 efflux emanating from roots was 3362% in May, thereafter decreasing to 1216% in October. This, in combination with larger temperature sensitivity for fine-root respiration, is suggested to cause the temperature sensitivity of soil CO2 efflux to diminish over the season.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".