MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Nitrogen and phosphorous budgets in a lacustrine sand dune ecosystem

2002· article· en· W2543796863 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Anwar Maun, Dezhou Sun

Bibliographic record

VenueEcoscience · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil and Water Nutrient Dynamics
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsLeaching (pedology)NitrogenWeatheringSand dune stabilizationEnvironmental scienceEcosystemRidgeErosionHydrology (agriculture)GeologySoil waterSoil scienceEcologyChemistryGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Atmospheric nitrogen input of about 1.622 g m-2 year-1 is a major source of nitrogen for plants in the foredunes of Lake Huron at Pinery Provincial Park. The concentration of total nitrogen and nitrate nitrogen in the soil increased from the beach to the first and the second dune ridges. The south slopes of dune ridges contained greater available soil nitrogen. Phosphorous from atmospheric deposition (0.016 g m-2 year-1) was too low to meet the demands of grasses on both the first and second dune ridges. The source of phosphorous in sand dunes was primarily from the weathering of parent material in the soil pool. The total phosphorous pool in the soil did not change from the first to the second dune ridge primarily because of sand movement, erosion, and sand accretion. No relationship was found between decay rates and age of sand dune ridges. After eight months of decay the loss of above- and below-ground biomass ranged from 27 to 39% in five habitats. The length of time for complete decomposition of above- and below-ground biomass ranged between 495 to 855 days. Nitrogen leaching loss was higher from the soil on the second dune ridge, while phosphorous leaching loss was higher on the first dune ridge. Proportionately less nitrogen was lost in leaching than phosphorous. Even though nitrogen and phosphorous were present in low quantities, the plant species did not show any symptoms of deficiency.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.407
Threshold uncertainty score0.513

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.175
Teacher spread0.168 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations4
Published2002
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcoscienceSame topicSoil and Water Nutrient DynamicsFrench-language works237,207