MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Growing-Season Carbon Dioxide Flux in a Dry Subarctic Heath: Responses to Long-term Manipulations

2004· article· en· W2179162287 on OpenAlexaff
Lotte Illeris, S.M. König, Paul Grogan, Sven Jonasson, Anders Michelsen, H. Ro‐Poulsen

Bibliographic record

VenueArctic Antarctic and Alpine Research · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRespirationSubarctic climateGrowing seasonEcosystem respirationEcosystemCarbon dioxideBiomass (ecology)NutrientEnvironmental scienceAgronomyDry seasonAnimal sciencePrimary productionBotanyEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Carbon dioxide fluxes in a dry subarctic heath were examined after 10 and 11 yr of experimental manipulations of temperature, light, and nutrients. The aim was to investigate how growing season carbon (C) balance was affected by the major climatic factors that are expected to change in the future. Carbon flux was measured in closed chambers as uptake through gross ecosystem production (GP), release through ecosystem respiration (ER), and as net ecosystem production (NEP). Diurnal NEP through a day with clear skies at peak growing season was consistently negative through all treatments the first year of measurement, and day-time NEP varied around zero at eight days across the growing season the second year, implying that a net release of C from the ecosystem to the atmosphere may take place during the growing season. Our results suggest that respiration was the main determinant of C balance, and that variations in light levels and temperature could alter the balance between C uptake and C loss. Fertilization strongly enhanced both ER and GP whereas temperature enhancement changed neither ER nor GP. Shading decreased both ER and GP. After harvest of the aboveground plant biomass, the belowground respiration was 72 to 93% of the ER before harvest. The significant treatment effects on belowground respiration after harvest were similar to the effects on ER before harvest. These results suggest that the ER were mainly from belowground respiration, and that the treatments affected the belowground respiration more than the respiration above ground.

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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Citations44
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArctic Antarctic and Alpine ResearchSame topicPlant Water Relations and Carbon DynamicsFrench-language works237,207