MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2793023982 · doi:10.1002/eap.1689

Current and historical land use influence soil‐based ecosystem services in an urban landscape

2018· article· en· W2793023982 on OpenAlex
Carly D. Ziter, Monica G. Turner

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueEcological Applications · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLand Use and Ecosystem Services
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonNational Science Foundation
KeywordsEcosystem servicesCurrent (fluid)EcologyLand useEcosystemGeographyEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental scienceLandscape ecologyAgroforestryHabitatBiologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Urban landscapes are increasingly recognized as providing important ecosystem services ( ES ) to their occupants. Yet, urban ES assessments often ignore the complex spatial heterogeneity and land‐use history of cities. Soil‐based services may be particularly susceptible to land‐use legacy effects. We studied indicators of three soil‐based ES , carbon storage, water quality regulation, and runoff regulation, in a historically agricultural urban landscape and asked (1) How do ES indicators vary with contemporary land cover and time since development? (2) Do ES indicators vary primarily among land‐cover classes, within land‐cover classes, or within sites? (3) What is the relative contribution of urban land‐cover classes to potential citywide ES provision? We measured biophysical indicators (soil carbon [C], available phosphorus [P], and saturated hydraulic conductivity [ K s ]) in 100 sites across five land‐cover classes, spanning an ~125‐year gradient of time since development within each land‐cover class. Potential for ES provision was substantial in urban green spaces, including developed land. Runoff regulation services (high K s ) were highest in forests; water quality regulation (low P) was highest in open spaces and grasslands; and open spaces and developed land (e.g., residential yards) had the highest C storage. In developed land covers, both C and P increased with time since development, indicating effects of historical land‐use on contemporary ES and trade‐offs between two important ES . Among‐site differences accounted for a high proportion of variance in soil properties in forests, grasslands, and open space, while residential areas had high within‐site variability, underscoring the leverage city residents have to improve urban ES provision. Developed land covers contributed most ES supply at the citywide scale, even after accounting for potential impacts of impervious surfaces. Considering the full mosaic of urban green space and its history is needed to estimate the kinds and magnitude of ES provided in cities, and to augment regional ES assessments that often ignore or underestimate urban ES supply.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.217 · 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