MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2948532326 · doi:10.1038/s41598-019-44921-w

Impacts of changes in vegetation on saturated hydraulic conductivity of soil in subtropical forests

2019· article· en· W2948532326 on OpenAlexaff
Mingzhuo Hao, Jinchi Zhang, Miaojing Meng, Han Y. H. Chen, Xiaoping Guo, Shenglong Liu, Lixin Ye

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoil and Unsaturated Flow
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
FundersDoctorate Fellowship Foundation of Nanjing Forestry UniversityPriority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education InstitutionsNanjing Forestry University
KeywordsEvergreenVegetation (pathology)Soil waterVegetation typeEnvironmental scienceSubtropicsHydraulic conductivitySoil scienceSoil typeHydrology (agriculture)EcologyGeologyGrasslandBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Saturated hydraulic conductivity ( K s ) is one of the most important soil properties that determines water flow behavior in terrestrial ecosystems. However, the K s of forest soils is difficult to predict due to multiple interactions, such as anthropological and geomorphic processes. In this study, we examined the impacts of vegetation type on K s and associated mechanisms. We found that K s differed with vegetation type and soil depth, and the impact of vegetation type on K s was dependent on soil depth. K s did not differ among vegetation types at soil depths of 0–10 and 20–30 cm, but was significantly lower in managed forest types (mixed evergreen broad-leaved and coniferous forests, bamboo forests, and tea gardens) than native evergreen broadleaf forests at a depth of 10–20 cm. Boosted regression tree analysis indicated that total porosity, non-capillary porosity, and macro water-stable aggregates were the primary factors that influenced K s . Our results suggested that vegetation type was a key factor that influences hydraulic properties in subtropical forest soils through the alteration of soil properties, such as porosity and macro water-stable aggregates.

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 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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.203
Threshold uncertainty score0.333

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations65
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicSoil and Unsaturated FlowFrench-language works237,207