Comparison of carbon and nitrogen storage in mineral soils of graminoid and shrub tundra sites, western Greenland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Shrub species are expanding across the Arctic in response to climate change and biotic interactions. Changes in belowground carbon (C) and nitrogen (N) storage are of global importance because Arctic soils store approximately half of global soil C. We collected 10 (60 cm) soil cores each from graminoid- and shrub-dominated soils in western Greenland and determined soil texture, pH, C and N pools, and C:N ratios by depth for the mineral soil. To investigate the relative chemical stability of soil C between vegetation types, we employed a novel sequential extraction method for measuring organo-mineral C pools of increasing bond strength. We found that (i) mineral soil C and N storage was significantly greater under graminoids than shrubs (29.0 ± 1.8 versus 22.5 ± 3.0 kg·C·m −2 and 1.9 ± .12 versus 1.4 ± 1.9 kg·N·m −2 ), (ii) chemical mechanisms of C storage in the organo-mineral soil fraction did not differ between graminoid and shrub soils, and (iii) weak adsorption to mineral surfaces accounted for 40%–60% of C storage in organo-mineral fractions — a pool that is relatively sensitive to environmental disturbance. Differences in these C pools suggest that rates of C accumulation and retention differ by vegetation type, which could have implications for predicting future soil C pool storage.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".