Distribution of soil nutrients under and outside tree/shrub canopies on a revegetated loessial slope
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies of soil nutrients in revegetated land have often not provided the sampling positions on a scale of individual trees and shrubs, suggesting that nutrients were assumed to not vary substantially at fine scales. This assumption, however, conflicts with the “fertile island” theory for arid and semi-arid areas. We assessed the importance of sampling position on nutrient contents in 0–100 cm soil profiles by examining differences between soils under and outside the canopies of Armeniaca sibirica and Caragana korshinskii on a slope on the Loess Plateau, China. Soil organic carbon, total nitrogen (TN), total phosphorus, ammonium N, and extractable P did not differ significantly under and outside the canopies, except for nitrate N (NO3−-N). The differences between these two canopy positions were significantly larger for C. korshinskii than A. sibirica for TP, significantly larger on upper than middle and lower slope sections for TN and NO3−-N. The NO3−-N content varied with sampling position around individual trees and shrubs, and trail tests about sampling position can be conducted around individual leguminous plants, in flatter areas, and in topsoil.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".