Impacts of litter decay on organic leachate composition and reactivity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Litter decomposition produces labile and recalcitrant forms of dissolved organic matter (DOM) that significantly affect soil carbon (C) sequestration. Chemical analysis of this DOM can provide important knowledge for understanding soil DOM dynamics, but detailed molecular analyses on litter derived DOM are scarce. Here we use ultrahigh resolution mass spectrometry (FT-ICR MS) to characterize the molecular composition of DOM from fresh and progressively decomposed litter samples. We compared high reactive (HR) and low reactive (LR) litter sources with regard to changes in the chemistry and bioavailability of leachates throughout the early phase of litter decay. We show that litter reactivity is a driver of chemical changes in the leached DOM of litter species. Birch, alder and Vaccinium (i.e. HR) litter initially produced more DOM with a higher lability than that of spruce, pine and wood (i.e. LR) litter. Labile oxidized phenolic compounds were abundant in leachates produced during the initial HR litter decay stages, indicating litter lignin degradation. However, the similarity in chemistry between HR and LR leachates increased during the litter decay process as highly leachable structures in HR litter were depleted. In contrast, chemistry of leachates from LR litter changed little during the litter decay process. The oxygenated phenolic compounds from HR litter were driving the lability of HR leachates and the changes in relative abundance of molecules during DOM incubation. This appeared to result in the creation of stable aliphatic secondary microbial compounds. In LR leachates, lability was driven by labile aliphatic compounds, while more resistant phenolic compounds were associated with recalcitrance. These results show how DOM dynamics follow different paths depending on litter reactivity, which has important implications for soil biogeochemistry and C sequestration.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".