Separation of soil respiration: a site-specific comparison of partition methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Without accurate data on soil heterotrophic respiration (Rh), assessments of soil carbon (C) sequestration rate and C balance are challenging to produce. Accordingly, it is essential to determine the contribution of the different sources of the total soil CO2 efflux (Rs) in different ecosystems, but to date, there are still many uncertainties and unknowns regarding the soil respiration partitioning procedures currently available. This study compared the suitability and relative accuracy of five different Rs partitioning methods in a subtropical forest: (1) regression between root biomass and CO2 efflux, (2) lab incubations with minimally disturbed soil microcosm cores, (3) root exclusion bags with hand-sorted roots, (4) root exclusion bags with intact soil blocks and (5) soil δ13C–CO2 natural abundance. The relationship between Rh and soil moisture and temperature was also investigated. A qualitative evaluation table of the partition methods with five performance parameters was produced. The Rs was measured weekly from 3 February to 19 April 2017 and found to average 6.1 ± 0.3 MgCha-1yr-1. During this period, the Rh measured with the in situ mesh bags with intact soil blocks and hand-sorted roots was estimated to contribute 49 ± 7 and 79 ± 3 % of Rs, respectively. The Rh percentages estimated with the root biomass regression, microcosm incubation and δ13C–CO2 natural abundance were 54 ± 41, 8–17 and 61 ± 39 %, respectively. Overall, no systematically superior or inferior Rs partition method was found. The paper discusses the strengths and weaknesses of each technique with the conclusion that combining two or more methods optimizes Rh assessment reliability.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".