Charcoal carbon pools and their persistence in boreal forest soils, Northwest Territories, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Boreal forests store a large proportion of the world’s carbon (C) stocks in forest floor and mineral soils. Fire produces charcoal and other pyrogenic carbon (PyC) compounds that accumulate in soil, representing a poorly understood component of C stocks in boreal regions. Understanding the amount and decay rate of PyC is important for improving the accuracy of C budget models for boreal forests. In this study, charcoal, the predominant component of PyC was extracted and quantified using soil samples collected in the Northwest Territories (NWTs), Canada. The concentration of soil and charcoal C was determined using elemental analysis, while the age of charcoal was ascertained by radiocarbon dating. The proportion of charcoal C relative to total soil organic C was similar in forest floor and <2 mm mineral fractions, averaging 2.2% ± 0.5% and 2.0% ± 0.4%, respectively. Estimates of charcoal C quantities and proportion of the soil organic matter were comparable to other boreal and temperate forests but differed from grasslands. Charcoal ages were on centennial to multi-centennial scales, with charcoal C concentrations negatively correlated with age. Overall, charcoal represents a small but important component of organic C in NWT boreal forest soils and persists for centuries.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".