Microenvironment has little effect on the litter decomposition rate of temperate trees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individual tree species might affect underground soil properties to favor the decomposition of their own litter. However, in some studies, monospecific litter decomposed faster underneath multispecific canopies than under canopies of the same species as the litter, suggesting that plant diversity in the overstorey creates a more favorable decomposition microenvironment. We compared the decomposition rate of monospecific litter from eight temperate tree species under the crown of the same species as the litter (conspecific canopy), and a multispecific canopy formed by eight species. Using model selection, we determined the influence of the microenvironments, species, and litter chemistry on decomposition rates. The most robust model included the species and canopy type, but it differed only slightly from the model including only the species. Decomposition rates were significantly different among species and higher in conspecific canopy than multispecific canopy in all species. Models including specific leaf area and different combinations of chemical traits of the litter were less robust than the null model. These results show that the species origin of the litter was significantly more important than the microenvironment to explain litter decomposition rates.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".