Litter biomass and its carbon and nitrogen storage in four subtropical forests in central Southern China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Four subtropical forests with similar site conditions in the hilly area of Dashanchong Forest Park in central Hunan Province of China were selected to compare the existing litter biomass and its carbon(C) and nitrogen(N) storage.The litters were collected in the peak time of litter-fall.Among the four forests,Cyclobalanopsis glauca-Lithocarpus glaber mixed forest had the highest litter biomass(12.04±3.60 t·hm-2),followed by Pinus massoniana-L.glaber mixed forest(11.65±2.15 t·hm-2),Choerospondias axillaris forest(9.12±2.30 t·hm-2),and Cunninghamia lanceolata plantation(8.92±1.80 t·hm-2).In litter layer,leaf litter had the largest proportion,while fruit litter had the smallest one(5%).No significant differences were observed in the amounts of the litters with different decomposition degrees.The C concentration of the litters in the four forests ranged from 177.90 to 581.34 g·kg-1,and the N concentration varied from 5.18 to 15.48 g·kg-1.The C concentration of the litters decreased significantly with their decomposition degree(P 0.0001).The proportions of the semi-decomposed litter and decomposed litter in the forests had a negative correlation with the litter C/N.The litter C storage in the four forests ranged from 3.37 to 5.69 t·hm-2,and the N storage varied from 81.52 to 152.18 kg·hm-2.Because of the low litter decomposition rate and high existing litter amount,P.massoniana-L.glaber mixed forest had the highest C and N storage in its litter layer.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".