Tree-ring δ15N as an indicator of nitrogen dynamics in stands with N2-fixing <i>Alnus rubra</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tree-ring δ15N may depict site-specific, long-term patterns in nitrogen (N) dynamics under N2-fixing species, but field trials with N2-fixing tree species are lacking and the relationship of temporal patterns in tree-ring δ15N to soil N dynamics is controversial. We examined whether the tree-ring δ15N of N2-fixing red alder (Alnus rubra Bong.) would mirror N accretion rates and δ15N of soils and whether the influence of alder-fixed N could be observed in the wood of a neighboring conifer. We sampled a 27-year-old replacement series trial on south-eastern Vancouver Island, with red alder and coastal Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii [Mirb.] Franco) planted in five proportions (0/100, 11/89, 25/75, 50/50 and 100/0) at a uniform stem density. An escalation in forest floor N content was evident with an increasing proportion of red alder, equivalent to a difference of ~750 kg N ha-1 between 100% Douglas-fir versus 100% alder. The forest floor horizon also had high δ15N values in treatments with more red alder. Red alder had a consistent quadratic fit in tree-ring δ15N over time, with a net increase of $\sim$1.5‰, on average, from initial values, followed by a plateau or slight decline. Douglas-fir tree-ring δ15N, in contrast, was largely unchanged over time (in three of four plots) but was significantly higher in the 50/50 mix. The minor differences in current leaf litter N content and δ15N between alder and Douglas-fir, coupled with declining growth in red alder, suggests the plateau or declining trend in alder tree-ring δ15N could coincide with lower N2-fixation rates, potentially by loss in alder vigor at canopy closure, or down-regulation via nitrate availability.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".