MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3145984302

COMPARISON OF SOIL RESPIRATION IN BROAD-LEAVED KOREAN PINE FOREST AND RECLAIMED CROPLAND IN CHANGBAI MOUNTAINS, CHINA

2006· article· en· W3145984302 on OpenAlexaff
Zhou Guang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture, Soil, Plant Science
Canadian institutionsCAE (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoil respirationEnvironmental scienceEcosystem respirationSoil carbonGrowing seasonCarbon cycleEcosystemAgronomyEddy covarianceSoil waterSoil scienceEcologyBiology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and Aims Soil respiration is a major flux in the global carbon cycle. A small change in soil respiration may result in a large increase of atmospheric CO_2. Land conversion has the greatest impact on the terrestrial ecosystems among the components of global change, but the effects on soil respiration are inadequately understood. Our objective was to examine the response of soil respiration to conversion from forests to agricultural lands, using broad_leaved Korean pine forest and reclaimed cropland in the Changbai Mountains. Methods We used an Infra_red Gas Analyser (IGA) linked to a 50 cm×50 cm×15 cm chamber without a bottom. Three 50 cm×50 cm steel frames were inserted to a soil depth of 3-5 cm in randomly selected plots one day prior to measurement. When measuring, the chamber was put on the steel frame to make a closed container capturing CO_2 from the soil surface and piping the gas of chamber through the IGA. We repeated measurements every 15 days during the growing seasons from 2003 to 2005. Key Results Diurnal and seasonal variations of soil respiration were mainly affected by soil temperatures. Soil respiration rate reached a maximum around noon in cropland plots, about six hours earlier than that in forest plots. Minimum rates occurred at 5∶00 am in cropland plots and 7∶00-8∶00 am in forest plots. Diurnal variations were driven mostly by temperature. During the growing season, soil respiration had a statistically significant exponential relationship with soil temperatures at 5 cm depth, but was weakly correlated with soil volumetric water contents at 10 cm depth. Although soil temperatures in cropland plots were higher than those in forest plots, soil CO_2 efflux in forest was about twice that in cropland during the growing season (May to September). During the period of measurement, soil respiration rate of cropland ranged from 23.4% to 76.3% that of forest. Therefore, vegetation types were another factor affecting soil respiration due to the change of land_use. Q_ 10 values of soil respiration averaged 2.92 for forest plots and 3.07 for cropland plots, which may be overestimated. Conclusions Differences in soil respiration rates and patterns between forests and croplands result from changes in abiotic and biotic factors, including soil physicochemical properties, due to land_use change.

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 score0.285
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAgriculture, Soil, Plant ScienceFrench-language works237,207