MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Spatial heterogeneity and environmental controllers of soil organic carbon stocks in a boreal forest

2020· article· en· W3094058906 on OpenAlexaffabout
U.W.A. Vitharana, Nora J. Casson, Darshani Kumaragamage, Geoff Gunn, Scott N. Higgins, Umakant Mishra

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil and Water Nutrient Dynamics
Canadian institutionsInternational Institute for Sustainable DevelopmentUniversity of Winnipeg
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpatial variabilityEnvironmental scienceSoil carbonSoil scienceSpatial heterogeneitySpatial distributionBorealLoss on ignitionHydrology (agriculture)Soil waterTotal organic carbonSoil textureEcologyGeologyEnvironmental chemistryChemistryRemote sensing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The knowledge of spatial heterogeneity and environmental controllers of soil organic carbon (SOC) stocks is essential for upscaling and predicting SOC dynamics under changing land use and climatic conditions. This study investigated the spatial variability and intrinsic and extrinsic controllers of SOC stocks in a boreal forest catchment (320 ha) at the International Institute for Sustainable Development Experimental Lakes Area in Ontario, Canada. Forty-seven surface soil (0-30 cm) samples, representative of the spatial variability of topography, surface water flow patterns and vegetation distribution, were obtained within the catchment. Air dried soil samples were sieved to separate gravel (>2 mm) and fine-earth (<2 mm) fractions and were analyzed for SOC concentration using the loss-on-ignition method. Core sample method was used to determine the soil bulk density. SOC concentrations in surface soils showed a large spatial variability (1.2% to 50.4%, CV= 111.3%). Thick organic soil layers in the wetlands of the sub-catchment showed the highest SOC concentrations. The surface soil SOC stocks ranged between 14.5 to 240.5 Mg ha-1 with an average stock of 101.5 Mg ha-1. Spatial autocorrelations of SOC stocks were modelled by calculating relevant variograms. The variability of SOC stocks (sill = 834) was dominated by the random variability (nugget=275) whereas the variability of SOC concentration (sill = 2.5) was dominated by the spatially structured variability (nugget = 0). We found a strong spatial autocorrelation of the SOC concentrations within the catchment, but the SOC stocks were less spatially correlated. This was largely due to the heterogeneity in the thickness of the surface soil layer (10 cm - 30 cm) and in the gravel content (0-28.9%). We found that a large over-estimation of SOC stocks (52.5%) could result if these intrinsic factors are not considered. Extrinsic controllers were generally not significantly related to the SOC stock; Spearman’s rank correlation analysis on the entire dataset showed non-significant relationships between the SOC stock and extrinsic controllers, namely NDVI (r = 0.04) elevation (r = 0.2), slope (r = -0.1) and topographic indices, stream power index (r = -0.1), relative position index (r=-0.2) and plan curvature (r = -0.1). However, regression tree analysis revealed local-scale effects of aspect, NDVI, elevation, and distance to ridge on the SOC stocks. Many forest soil databases lack information of gravel content and soil depth. Thus, upscaling boreal forest SOC stocks without these two key intrinsic controllers can lead to higher uncertainties in SOC stock estimates. Further, the impacts of extrinsic controllers may vary across heterogenous landscapes. Machine learning-based digital soil mapping techniques such as Random Forest models are more appropriate for incorporating local-scale impacts of extrinsic controllers when upscaling SOC stocks of boreal forest 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.123
Threshold uncertainty score0.246

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.177
Teacher spread0.171 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoil and Water Nutrient Dynamics→French-language works237,207→