MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2676877055

Relationship between soil CO 2 concentrations and forest-floor CO 2 effluxes

2004· article· en· W2676877055 on OpenAlexaffabout
Rachhpal S. Jassal, Andy Black, Mike Novak, Kai Morgenstern, Zoran Nesic, D. Gaumont‐Guay

Bibliographic record

Venue26th Agricultural and Forest Meteorology/13th Air Pollution/5th Urban Environment/16th Biometeorology and Aerobiology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQ10Soil scienceEnvironmental scienceThermal diffusivitySoil waterForest floorDiffusionAtmospheric sciencesHydrology (agriculture)GeologyBotanyRespiration
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To better understand the biotic and abiotic factors that control soil CO2 efflux, we compared seasonal and diurnal variations in simultaneously measured forest-floor CO2 effluxes and soil CO2 concentration profiles in a 54-year-old Douglas fir forest on the east coast of Vancouver Island. We used small solid-state infrared CO2 sensors for long-term continuous real-time measurement of CO2 concentrations at different depths, and measured half-hourly soil CO2 effluxes with an automated non-steady-state chamber. We describe a simple steady-state method to measure CO2 diffusivity in undisturbed soil cores. The method accounts for the CO2 production in the soil and uses an analytical solution to the diffusion equation. The diffusivity was related to air-filled porosity by a power law function, which was independent of soil depth. CO2 concentration at all depths increased with increase in soil temperature, likely due to a rise in CO2 production, and with increase in soil water content due to decreased diffusivity or increased CO2 production or both. It also increased with soil depth reaching almost 10 mmol mol � 1 at the 50-cm depth. Annually, soil CO2 efflux was best described by an exponential function of soil temperature at the 5-cm depth, with the reference efflux at 10 8 C( F 10) of 2.6 mmol m � 2 s � 1 and the Q10 of 3.7. No evidence of displacement of CO2-rich soil air with rain was observed. Effluxes calculated from soil CO2 concentration gradients near the surface closely agreed with the measured effluxes. Calculations indicated that more than 75% of the soil CO2 efflux originated in the top 20 cm soil. Calculated CO2 production varied with soil temperature, soil water content and season, and when scaled to 10 8C also showed some diurnal variation. Soil CO2 efflux and concentrations as well as soil temperature at the 5-cm depth varied in phase. Changes in CO2 storage in the 0‐ 50 cm soil layer were an order of magnitude smaller than measured effluxes. Soil CO2 efflux was proportional to CO2 concentration at the 50-cm depth with the slope determined by soil water content, which was consistent with a simple steadystate analytical model of diffusive transport of CO2 in the soil. The latter proved successful in calculating effluxes during 2004. # 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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)0.001
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 score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.109

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Citations69
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue26th Agricultural and Forest Meteorology/13th Air Pollution/5th Urban Environment/16th Biometeorology and AerobiologySame topicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsFrench-language works237,207