Impact of vegetation on the methane budget of a temperate forest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Upland forest soils are known to be the main biological sink for methane, but studies have shown that net methane uptake of a forest ecosystem can be reduced when methane emissions by vegetation are considered. We estimated the methane budget of a young oak plantation by considering tree stems but also the understorey vegetation. Automated chambers connected to a laser‐based gas analyser, on tree stems, bare soil and soil covered with understorey vegetation, recorded CH 4 fluxes for 7 months at 3 h intervals. Tree stem emissions were low and equated to only 0.1% of the soil sink. Conversely, the presence of understorey vegetation increased soil methane uptake. This plant‐driven enhancement of CH 4 uptake occurred when the soil was consuming methane. At the stand level, the methane budget shifted from −1.4 ± 0.4 kg C ha −1 when we upscaled data obtained only on bare soil, to −2.9 ± 0.6 kg C ha −1 when we considered soil area that was covered with understorey vegetation. These results indicate that aerenchymatous plant species, which are known to reduce the methane sink in wetlands, actually increase soil methane uptake two‐fold in an upland forest by enhancing methane and oxygen transport and/or by promoting growth of methanotrophic populations.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".