Comparing soil profiles of adjacent forest stands with contrasting tree densities: lichen woodlands vs. black spruce–feathermoss stands in the continuous boreal forest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We studied mature and adjacent open lichen–spruce woodlands (LWs) and closed-canopy spruce–feathermoss stands (FMs) growing under similar edaphic conditions in the continuous boreal forest zone in Quebec (Canada). A total of six pairs of stands were investigated by profile sampling. Stem density, basal area, and biomass were about four times greater in FMs than in LWs on an area basis. In the humus layer, total stocks of C and N and of exchangeable K, Ca, Mg, Al, and Na were 1.4–2.3 times larger in FM than in LW soils. The first 30 cm and the first metre of mineral soils in LWs and FMs displayed similar available nutrient pools except for total C stocks, which were more than twice as large in FM as in LW soils in these soil layers. For the whole profile, total stocks of C and N and stocks of exchangeable Ca and Mg were 1.3–2.6 times larger in FM than in LW soils. These results highlight the low intrinsic fertility of LW soils, primarily due to the humus layer, but also the importance of the biological control of C, N, and mineral nutrients in these boreal soils.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".