The response of root and microbial respiration to the experimental warming of a boreal black spruce forest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigated the effects of a 5 °C soil + air experimental heating on root and microbial respiration in a boreal black spruce (Picea mariana (Mill.) B.S.P.) forest in northern Manitoba, Canada, that was warmed between 2004 and 2007. In 2007, the 14C/12C signatures of soil CO2 efflux and root and soil microbial respiration were used in a two-pool mixing model to estimate their proportional contributions to soil CO2 efflux and to examine how each changed in response to the warming treatments. In laboratory incubations, we examined whether warming had altered microbial respiration rates or microbial temperature sensitivity. The 14C/12C signature of soil CO2 efflux and microbial respiration in the heating treatments were both significantly (p < 0.05) enriched relative to the control treatment, suggesting that C deposited nearer the atmospheric bomb peak in 1963 contributed more to microbial respiration in heated than control treatments. Soil CO2 efflux was significantly greater in the heated than control treatments, suggesting the acclimation to temperature of either root or microbial respiration was not occurring in 2007. Microbial respiration in laboratory incubations was similar in heated and control soils. This study shows that microbial respiration rates still responded to temperature even after 4 years of warming, highlighting that ecosystem warming can cause a prolonged release of soil organic matter from these soils.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".