MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Effects of burning on vegetation, soil physicochemistry and prokaryotic microbial communities in surface and subsurface peat

2024· article· en· W4404052317 on OpenAlexaff
Shaun M. Allingham, Samantha J. Drake, Andrew Ramsey, Christopher Field, Felix Nwaishi, David R. Elliott

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Science of The Total Environment · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPeatlands and Wetlands Ecology
Canadian institutionsMount Royal University
FundersNatural Environment Research CouncilSight Research UK
KeywordsTopsoilPeatEnvironmental scienceVegetation (pathology)Prescribed burnBiogeochemical cycleCommunity structureSoil waterEcologyPlant communityChronosequenceMicrobial population biologySpecies richnessSoil scienceGeologyBiologyBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prescribed burning is a common management strategy in peatlands that has the potential to affect soil physicochemistry, alter biogeochemical cycles and trigger changes in vegetation structure. How burning affects prokaryotic community composition across different soil profiles is not well understood. This study explored the effects of prescribed burning on the diversity of prokaryotic communities in peat soils. Soil samples were collected from Moor House Nature Reserve, UK, a long-term monitoring site initiated in 1954 subject to three burning treatments: Burning at short rotations every 10 years, burning at long rotations every 20 years and a non-burn control. Observed species richness for archaea was highest in the topsoil of the non-burn control plots and highest for bacteria in the topsoil of the non-burn control and plots under a long rotation regime. Community composition was significantly different between different burn treatments and soil depth. Archaeal community structure was shaped by NH 4 + and pH in the topsoil; by Pb, moisture and Al in the 20–40 cm profile; and by total N, total C, Al, Ca, Fe and pH in the 40–60 cm profile. Bacterial community structure was shaped by NH 4 + , heather cover, pH and Mg in the topsoil; by Fe, K and Pb in the 20–40 cm profile; and by Al, Ca and Fe in the 40–60 cm profile. A co-occurrence network analysis revealed that the topsoil of the non-burn control plots had a more complex network structure with more positive links than those under a rotational burn, but a higher average connectivity with a higher number of negative links was observed in the long rotation 20–40 cm profile. The results provide a new insight into the response processes of soil prokaryotic communities to burning in peatland soils, providing valuable knowledge that can support the evaluation and management of ecosystem services in peatlands. • Prescribed burning altered aboveground vegetation and soil properties altering the structure of prokaryotic communities. • Co-occurrence networks show positive links in non-burn topsoil and antagonistic links in short-rotation burn treatments. • Prokaryotic communities show unique indicator species after prescribed burns, helping estimate the site's burning history. • The study highlights the potential impact on soil biogeochemical processes mediated by prokaryotic communities in peatlands.

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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.191
Teacher spread0.187 · 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Science of The Total Environment→Same topicPeatlands and Wetlands Ecology→French-language works237,207→