MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4367853131 · doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2023.121020

Nine-years effect of harvesting and mechanical site preparation on bryophyte decomposition and carbon stocks in a boreal forested peatland

2023· article· en· W4367853131 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ange-Marie Botroh, David Paré, Xavier Cavard, Nicole J. Fenton, Osvaldo Valeria, Philippe Marchand, Yves Bergeron

Bibliographic record

VenueForest Ecology and Management · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPeatlands and Wetlands Ecology
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest ServiceUniversité du Québec à MontréalUniversité du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBryophyteEnvironmental scienceSoil carbonSphagnumPeatTaigaBorealSoil waterAgronomyEcologySoil scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The boreal forest holds the world's largest soil carbon (C) reservoir. A large portion of it is contained in a thick organic layer originating from the slow decay of bryophytes. Because a thick organic layer slows down tree growth, reduces forest productivity, and thereby reduces the potential wood supply, silvicultural treatments that aim to maintain or restore forest productivity after harvesting often involve mechanical site preparation. However, while these treatments can increase growth and C storage in trees, they can also lead to accelerated decomposition of the soil organic matter, reducing C storage. In this study, we assessed the nine-years effect of two silvicultural treatments on soil C dynamics in forested peatlands of northwestern Quebec, compared to unharvested controls: (1) cut with protection of regeneration and soils (CPRS; low soil disturbance, also called careful logging around advanced growth (CLAAG)), (2) CPRS followed by mechanical site preparation (CPRS + MSP, plowing; severe soil disturbance). The mass loss rate of three bryophytes (Pleurozium schreberi, Sphagnum capillifolium, and Sphagnum fuscum) was measured over two growing seasons together with soil organic carbon (SOC) stocks. We also studied the different effects of temperature, water table level, depth, and type of soil layer on mosses decomposition.We observed a significant influence of silvicultural treatments, bryophyte species, and soil layer type (fibric, mesic, humic and mineral) on bryophyte mass loss, which was higher in the CPRS + MSP treatment (21.6 ± 0.13 % standard error) than in control sites (9.5 ± 0.21 %); CPRS alone resulted in an intermediate mass loss of 11.6 ± 0.23 %, for Sphagnum mosses. Bryophyte mass loss was significantly higher in fibric than humic layer. SOC stocks in the uppermost organic soil layer (fibric) were lower in the CPRS + MSP group than in the control group, while the CPRS group was intermediate; however, differences were not statistically significant for the other soil layer and for total SOC. We conclude that while CPRS + MSP accelerates Sphagnum moss decomposition in the topsoil layer, it has limited impact on total soil C stocks that are detectable with stock change methods.

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 score0.241
Threshold uncertainty score0.479

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueForest Ecology and ManagementSame topicPeatlands and Wetlands EcologyFrench-language works237,207