MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2805119226 · doi:10.1038/s41598-018-26966-5

Response of soil organic carbon and nitrogen to nitrogen deposition in a Larix principis-rupprechtii plantation

2018· article· en· W2805119226 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Junyong Ma, Fengfeng Kang, Xiaoqin Cheng, Hairong Han

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaUniversity of British Columbia
KeywordsNitrogenSoil carbonCarbon fibersEnvironmental scienceDeposition (geology)Environmental chemistryAgronomyBotanyChemistrySoil scienceBiologySoil waterMathematicsOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Plant growth and ecosystem production are limited by nitrogen (N), however, the mechanisms of N limitation in terrestrial carbon (C) sequestration in soil remains unclear. To examine these mechanisms N was deposited at rates of 0, 50, 100, and 150 kg N ha−1 yr−1 for two years in a subalpine Larix principis-rupprechtii plantation. Soil C and N components were measured three times encompassing the entire growing season (spring, summer, and autumn) in the second year of the experiment. Results showed that N-deposition affected soil organic carbon (SOC) in the upper soil layer (0–10 cm) especially in the summer season. Dissolved organic carbon (DOC) played the key role in C loss under the high-N treatment (p < 0.01) with higher N-deposition significantly increasing both DOC and DOC/SOC in summer (p < 0.01). In the summer season when there was sufficient precipitation and higher temperatures, the average DOC across all treatments was higher than spring and autumn. The active C components contributed to SOC sequestration in low and medium N- treatment and DOC, DON dynamics in summer were responsible for the C and N pool loss under the high N-treatment.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations21
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicForest ecology and managementFrench-language works237,207