Wild boar (<i>Sus scrofa</i>) has minor effects on soil nutrient and carbon dynamics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wild boar populations have increased worldwide, but the consequences of their disturbances on boreal forest ecosystems are largely unknown. We investigated how wild boars affect soil processes in a Swedish boreal forest. We estimated effects on ecosystem functioning using phospholipid fatty acid analyses (PLFA) to characterise microbial groups, and by measuring soil respiration, soil carbon (C), nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) concentrations, as well as the availability of NO3− and NH4+. We compared samples collected inside wild boar enclosures with adjacent reference areas without wild boar disturbance. We found no difference in soil microbial composition, except for a consistently higher fungi:bacteria ratio in the enclosures. These results are contrary to our hypothesis that rooting raises nitrogen levels, which in turn result in more bacteria. Soil nutrient levels showed inconsistent patterns, suggesting that substrate changes – as opposed to nutrient changes – stimulated fungal growth. Soil respiration was lower in the enclosures, contradicting earlier findings suggesting increased soil CO2 emissions from wild boar rooting. Overall, our study suggests that increased wild boar abundance has a minor impact on soil processes in boreal forests. Future studies should determine if the modest impacts remain across time and boreal forests.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".