Influence of carbon inputs on soil respiration in a<i>Platycladus orientalis</i>plantation in mountainous Beijing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To understand carbon source characteristics of soil respiration, a trench method was used to control carbon inputs (control treatment: CK, no litter treatment: NL, no root treatment: NR, and no litter and no root treatment: NLNR) in a Platycladus orientalis (L.) Franco plantation, so that soil respiration, temperatures and moisture content could be analyzed. Results indicate that different carbon inputs created no significant variance in soil temperatures and moisture content (P>0.05), whereas soil respiration was significantly influenced (P<0.01). During the measurement period, mean soil respiration of CK, NL, NR and NLNR were 3.69, 1.41, 3.11, and 1.99 µmol/m2/s, respectively. Soil respiration was reduced by 36.28 ±5.79%, 15.25 ±2.62% and 25.53 ±4.95% in the NL, NR and NLNR treatments, respectively. The proportions of mineral soil, litter and root respirations were 40.95%, 46.91% and 12.14%, respectively. Different carbon inputs caused no significant R2 variance in the temperature index model or in the temperature-water combined model. These results provide guidelines for investigating Platycladus orientalis ecosystem carbon emissions, as well as carbon input and output balance, and the role of soil respiration in the carbon cycle.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".