MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2505879456 · doi:10.1038/srep30087

Effects of grazing on photosynthetic features and soil respiration of rangelands in the Tianshan Mountains of Northwest China

2016· article· en· W2505879456 on OpenAlexaff
Hua Liu, Runguo Zang, Han Y. H. Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
FundersDivision of Environmental BiologyNational Science Foundation
KeywordsRangelandGrazingPhotosynthesisRespirationSoil respirationAgronomyEnvironmental scienceBiologySoil carbonCarbon cycleTrifolium repensEcosystemSoil waterBotanyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rangelands play a critical role in the global carbon cycle. However, the eco-physiological mechanisms associated with the effects of grazing on leaf photosynthesis and soil respiration remain poorly understood. To examine the impacts of grazing on leaf photosynthesis and soil respiration, we measured the photosynthetic parameters of the dominant species (Trifolium repens) and the soil respiration in grazed and ungrazed rangelands in the Tianshan Mountains of China. We found that grazing reduced the daily maximum net photosynthetic rate and soil respiration rates by 35% and 15%, respectively. The photosynthetic quantum yield, dark respiratory rate, and water use efficiency of T. repens leaves were reduced in grazed plots by 33.3%, 69.2%, and 21.5%, respectively. Our results demonstrated that grazing reduced carbon assimilation while increasing soil respiration within the rangelands in the Tianshan Mountains.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.187
Teacher spread0.184 · 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 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

Citations33
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicPlant Water Relations and Carbon DynamicsFrench-language works237,207