MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2312366815 · doi:10.1139/b11-026

Uptake and partitioning of simulated atmospheric N inputs in<i>Populus tremuloides – Pinus strobus</i>forest mesocosms

2011· article· en· W2312366815 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
L. E. Nave, Peter S. Curtis

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Michigan
KeywordsMesocosmTree canopyForest floorPlant litterLitterDeposition (geology)Environmental scienceBiomass (ecology)Soil waterSeedlingCanopyAgronomyEcosystemForest ecologyBotanyBiologyEcologySoil science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canopies of forest ecosystems frequently intercept and retain >50% of atmospheric nitrogen (N) deposition. Atmospheric N reaching the forest floor often is retained in litter and soil pools, but if atmospheric N retained by the canopy is assimilated through foliar uptake, then N inputs may have greater effects on tree N requirements and growth than suggested by N additions to forest floors alone. To quantify foliar and root uptake of N deposition by trees and to determine patterns of within-tree N allocation, we performed a tightly controlled15N tracer experiment using constructed, seminatural forest mesocosms. Mesocosms contained seedling trees, which assimilated modest amounts of the aqueous15NH4Cl applied to their canopies and surrounding soils (10% and 14%, respectively). The seedlings allocated most of the15N that they took up to leaf biomass (40%–50%), regardless of uptake pathway. Soil pools retained >80% of the15N applied to mesocosm forest floors, with soil organic matter concentration explaining 79% of the variation in soil15N recovery across sampling depths. The low value for15N movement into biomass and its retention in soil pools suggests that atmospheric N deposition measured at a nearby forest site has no short-term effects on tree N content or 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations4
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsFrench-language works237,207