Litter Production and Accumulation as an Indicator of Degradation in Caatinga
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ecosystem processes in the caatinga, such as litter dynamic, are threatened and little is known about it in these environments. The litter processes can be used as indicators of degradation or recovery of an ecosystem because these processes react to changes in the ecosystems. The litterfall deposition was collected monthly over 23 months in collectors of 1.0 m2. The litter accumulation on soil was collected monthly over 23 months in frames of 0.25 m2. The coefficient of decomposition (K) was estimated by the relation between annual litter production and litter stock in the soil surface. Annual litterfall production increased with stand age. Total annual litter production in different age stands varies from 1.37 Mg ha-1 in the 15 years to 2.37 Mg ha-1 in the 50 years stand. K and renewal times were also significantly different among the sites. K was higher in 50 years, followed by 30 years and 15 years. There were a higher litter production and accumulation in the older stands. The older stands presented faster litter decomposition and renew, which evidences a better utilization of litter in the nutrient cycling process and the incorporation of organic matter into the soil. These results show that litter processes are effective indicators of the stage of degradation in a caatinga ecosystem.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".