Effects of sand burial caused by ant nests on soil microbial biomass, basal respiration, and enzyme activity in/under biocrusts in vegetated areas of the Tennger Desert
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Sand burial of crusts, caused by ant burrowing, is a common phenomenon in desert landscapes, yet the potential impacts on soil processes are unknown. Three sand burial depths, 3.0–5.0 mm (deep burial), 1.0–1.5 mm (shallow burial), and 0 mm (control) affecting two dominant biocrusts (viz., cyanobacteria‐lichen crusts and moss crusts) sampled in the moist and dry seasons were selected to explore this issue in two vegetation areas of the Tennger Desert. We collected 180 samples from biocrust layers and topsoil to assess soil physicochemical properties, microbial biomass, basal respiration, and enzymes activities. The results showed that sand burial of crusts reduced soil microbial biomass, basal respiration, and enzyme activities, while deep burial caused a substantial decline in these parameters. Sand burial interfered with the biocrusts structure (e.g., rupture and flaking) and properties, subsequently causing soil‐nutrient deprivation and soil microclimate deterioration. These are major mechanisms for decreasing soil microbial biomass, basal respiration, and enzyme activities. Moss crusts had significantly higher levels of the microbial parameters than cyanobacteria‐lichen crusts following sand burial, indicating that biocrusts' tolerance to sand burial was synchronized with their progressive succession. In addition, soil microbial parameters were higher in natural vegetation areas than artificial vegetation areas following sand burial. Such observations suggest that high soil fertility could mitigate the negative effects of sand burial on soil processes. In conclusion, sand burial induces biocrust degradation and further disturbs surface soil processes in arid desert ecosystems.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".