The distribution of carbon stocks between tree woody biomass and soil differs between Scots pine and broadleaved species (beech, oak) in European forests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While the impacts of forest management options on carbon (C) storage are well documented, the way they affect C distribution among ecosystem components remains poorly investigated. Yet, partitioning of total forest C stocks, particularly between aboveground woody biomass and the soil, greatly impacts the stability of C stocks against disturbances in forest ecosystems. This study assessed the impact of species composition and stand density on C storage in aboveground woody biomass (stem + branches), coarse roots, and soil, and their partitioning in pure and mixed forests in Europe. We used 21 triplets (5 beech-oak, 8 pine-beech, 8 pine-oak mixed stands, and their respective monocultures at the same sites) in seven European countries. We computed biomass C stocks from total stand inventories and species-specific allometric equations, and soil organic C data down to 40 cm depth. On average, the broadleaved species stored more C in aboveground woody biomass than soil, while C storage in pine was equally distributed between both components. Stand density had a strong effect on C storage in tree woody biomass but not in the soil. After controlling for stand basal area, the mixed stands had, on average, similar total C stocks (in aboveground woody biomass + coarse roots + soil) to the most performing monocultures. Although species composition and stand density affect total C stocks and its partitioning between aboveground woody biomass and soil, a large part of variability in soil C storage was unrelated to stand characteristics. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10342-022-01453-9.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".