MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2770092773 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2017-0270

Asymbiotic nitrogen fixation on woody roots of Norway spruce and silver birch

2017· article· en· W2770092773 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Raisa Mäkipää, Susanna Huhtiniemi, Janne Kaseva, Aino Smolander

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPicea abiesTaigaBotanyNitrogen fixationNitrogenaseBetula pendulaMonocultureLarchWoody plantBiologyNitrogenAgronomyChemistryEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High rates of asymbiotic nitrogen (N) fixation have been measured in woody roots in temperate forests, but this rate has not been quantified in boreal forests. We studied the asymbiotic N2 fixation associated with living and decomposing woody roots of Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) H. Karst.) in three sites in Finland. In addition, tree species effect was studied in one site that included Norway spruce and silver birch (Betula pendula Roth.) monocultures and mixed stands. The rate of N2 fixation measured as nitrogenase activity was affected by host tree species; spruce roots were the most active (0.67 C2H4·day–1·(g dry mass)–1 in spruce monocultures). The activity was not statistically different in decayed and living root samples, and moisture content did not explain the observed high variability in nitrogenase activity. In a birch–spruce mixed stand, the average N2 fixation in woody roots was 0.17 kg N·ha−1·year−1, whereas in Norway spruce dominated sites, the activity ranged from 0.06 to 0.15 kg N·ha−1·year−1. The N2 fixation in decaying and living woody roots is an important contributor to the long-term total N balance of the forest. However, the estimated rate of N2 fixation is low compared with atmospheric N deposition.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations7
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest Research→Same topicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics→French-language works237,207→