Invertebrate community responses to biochar addition in NTFP-enriched Amazonian secondary forests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Soil invertebrates contribute to critical ecosystem processes in tropical regions, being highly diverse yet poorly studied. The addition of pyrolyzed biomass (biochar) to tropical soils can increase forest productivity by enhancing the availability of P and micronutrients, but effects on the invertebrate community have received little attention. Here, we present a 3-year study of litter invertebrates captured in pitfall traps in secondary forests experimentally enriched with non-timber forest product (NTFP) species and amended with kiln and traditional mound biochars at 10 t ha −1 in the Ecuadorian Amazon in a poorer alluvial sandy soil, and a colluvial soil with higher nutrient content. Soil conditions and seasonality were the main determinants of soil invertebrate community structure in multivariate analyses; however, biochar treatment effects were also detectable. Predators (ants and spiders) and microbivores (especially Poduromorpha) were the dominant functional groups in the study, with predators increasing over the collection seasons and microbivores decreasing. Microbivores showed reduced abundance at high Al availability, which was reduced by biochar addition. In contrast, predators showed increased abundance with increasing soil Al, but this pattern was only pronounced in the poorer alluvial soil and mixed NTFP treatment. In the colluvial soil, with higher nutrient content, parasitoid wasps increased in abundance with biochar additions relative to controls, while isopods showed a positive response to kiln-made biochar in the mixed NTFP treatment only. The findings indicate responses of soil invertebrates, in particular Poduromorpha, ants, and parasitoid wasps, to biochar amendments, but with patterns that vary over time and that are dependent on the specific biochar used as well as the soil type.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".