MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4256154087 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-522038/v1

Forest Fragmentation Slows the Decomposition of Coarse Woody Debris in a Subtropical Forest

2021· preprint· en· W4256154087 on OpenAlexaff
Chunsheng Wu, Cindy E. Prescott, Chunjie Shu, Baoyong Li, Zhijian Zhang, Hankun Wang, Yi Zhang, Yuanqiu Liu, G. Geoff Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicForest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsCoarse woody debrisFragmentation (computing)Environmental scienceSnagForest ecologyAbundance (ecology)EcosystemSubtropicsTemperate rainforestEcologyWater contentAgroforestryForestryBiologyGeographyHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Forest fragmentation is increasing rapidly around the world, and edge effects caused by fragmented forests can influence ecosystem functions and ecological processes, including coarse woody debris (CWD) decomposition. Understanding the influencing mechanisms of edge effect on CWD decomposition is needed to assess the effects of forest fragmentation on C cycling and storage. We measured rates of mass loss of CWD of Cinnamomum camphora and Pinus taiwanensis over two years at two distances (0-5m vs. 60m) from a forest edge at two altitudes (215 and 1400 m a.s.l.), in a subtropical forest. In addition, we determined the microbial community of each CWD and the soil beneath via phospholipid fatty acids (PLFAs). Mass loss of CWD 60 m from the forest edge was > 15 % greater than that at the edge (0-5m). Mass loss was positively correlated with the abundance of microbial community and moisture content of the decaying CWD. Distance from edge explained 17.4% of the total variation of the microbial abundance in CWD. The results indicated that the reduced abundance of microbial communities and moisture content at forest edges reduced rates of decomposition of CWD. Long-term experiments with more tree species and more forest types are needed to assess the edge effect's generality.

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)0.000
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.280 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Square→Same topicForest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies→French-language works237,207→