MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410992424 · doi:10.1080/10549811.2025.2513689

Distribution of Aboveground Biomass and Soil Organic Carbon in a Degraded Mangrove in Douala-Edéa National Park, Cameroon

2025· article· en· W4410992424 on OpenAlexaff
Louis Paul Roger Kabelong Banoho, Moses B. Libalah, Cédric Djomo Chimi, Damien Marie Essono, Tagnang Nadege Madountsap, Melanie Chichi Nyako, Émile Narcisse Njila Nana, Cintya Djouking Keubou, Remi Jiagho, Robert B. Weladji, Louis Zapfack

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sustainable Forestry · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCoastal wetland ecosystem dynamics
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersConservation Action Research Network
KeywordsMangroveBiomass (ecology)National parkBlue carbonEnvironmental scienceAgroforestryGeographySoil carbonDistribution (mathematics)Carbon fibersTotal organic carbonForestryEcologyCarbon sequestrationSoil waterArchaeologyBiologySoil scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mangrove ecosystems store large amounts of carbon in their soils because of their location in the intertidal zone. These ecosystems are heavily exploited for livelihood and thus threatened by human activities. In this study, we evaluated the relationships between Mangrove stand structure and soil organic carbon at different soil depths. We established quadrats of 25 m × 25 m (625 m2), measured all trees ≥5 cm within the quadrats and collected soil samples using an auger at different depths (0–30 cm; 30–40 cm and 40–50 cm). Results from the study highlighted that Rhizophora harrisonii, Acrostichum aureum, and Laguncularia racemosa were the three species present in the Mangrove stands. Mangrove stand structure stood at 448 ± 3 stems ha−1for absolute density, 11.46 ± 0.02 m2 ha−1 for basal area, 14.47 ± 0.34 cm for average diameter, and 148.76 ± 0.40 Mg ha−1for aboveground biomass. A negative but significant association existed between Mangrove stand structure and soil organic carbon at the 40–50 cm depth. Soil organic carbon varied significantly with depth with average values of 157.87 ± 0.94 Mgc ha−1, 93.66 ± 0.93 Mgc ha−1, and 91.36 ± 0.67 Mgc ha−1 for 0–30 cm, 30–40 cm, and 40–50 cm depths, respectively. This result highlights the critical “niche depth” at which Mangrove stands acquire soil elements.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.405

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sustainable ForestrySame topicCoastal wetland ecosystem dynamicsFrench-language works237,207