MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3011594923 · doi:10.3390/f11030304

Response of Soil CO2 Efflux to Shelterwood Harvesting in a Mature Temperate Pine Forest

2020· article· en· W3011594923 on OpenAlexaffabout
Robin Thorne, Myroslava Khomik, Emily Hayman, M. Altaf Arain

Bibliographic record

VenueForests · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceSoil respirationEcosystemTemperate rainforestForest ecologyMicroclimateSoil carbonWater contentTemperate forestCanopyEcosystem respirationAgronomyEddy covarianceSoil waterEcologySoil scienceBiologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In forest ecosystems, soil CO2 efflux is an important component of ecosystem respiration (RE), which is generally driven by variability in soil temperature and soil moisture. Tree harvesting in forests can alter the soil variables and, consequently, impact soil CO2 efflux. This study investigated the response of total soil CO2 efflux, and its components, to a shelterwood harvesting event of a mature temperate white pine (Pinus strobus L.) forest located in Southern Ontario, Canada. The objective was to explore the response of soil CO2 effluxes to changes in the forest microclimate, such as soil temperature and soil moisture, after shelterwood harvesting removed approximately one-third of the overstory canopy. No significant differences were found in both soil temperature and soil moisture between the pre-harvesting (2008–2011) and post-harvesting (2012–2014) periods. Despite similar soil microclimates, total soil CO2 effluxes were significantly reduced by up to 37%. Soil CO2 effluxes from heterotrophic sources were significantly reduced post-harvesting by approximately 27%, while no significant difference in the mineral-soil horizon sources were measured. An analysis of RE, measured with an eddy covariance tower over the study area, showed an increase post-harvesting. However, the overall net ecosystem carbon exchange showed no significant difference between pre- and post-harvesting. This was due to an increase in the gross ecosystem productivity post-harvesting, compensating for the increased losses (i.e., increased RE). This study highlights the complexities of soil CO2 efflux after a disturbance, such as a harvest. The knowledge gained from this study adds to our understanding of how shelterwood harvesting may influence ecosystem carbon exchange and will be useful for forest managers focused on carbon sequestration and forest conservation.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.165
Threshold uncertainty score0.377

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueForestsSame topicPlant Water Relations and Carbon DynamicsFrench-language works237,207