MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411717565 · doi:10.1139/facets-2025-0086

Drivers of the variability of soil phosphorus fractions in boreal forested watersheds

2025· article· en· W4411717565 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Nora J. Casson, Chammi P. Attanayake, Geethani Amarawansha, Mauli Gamhewage, Darshani Kumaragamage, Jeremy Leathers, U.W.A. Vitharana

Bibliographic record

VenueFACETS · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPeatlands and Wetlands Ecology
Canadian institutionsStantec (Canada)University of Winnipeg
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceBorealPhosphorusTaigaHydrology (agriculture)Soil scienceForestryEcologyGeographyGeologyChemistryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the boreal forest, phosphorus (P) is tightly cycled and can be heterogenous in its distribution across the landscape. Characterizing chemical, physical, and landscape-scale drivers of variability in both concentration and forms of soil P can help us understand how P dynamics will respond to environmental change; however, data on forms of soil P in boreal forests are sparse. The goal of this study was to assess the variability of soil P across a boreal forested watershed. Seventy-four surface soil samples from a boreal forested catchment were analyzed for a suite of chemical and physical characteristics, and were paired with geospatial data to develop predictive models of forms of soil P. Water-extractable P concentrations were low, while total P (65.7–2197 mg kg −1 ) and plant-available (Mehlich-3-extractable) P (0.63–193 mg kg −1 ) concentrations varied widely across the study area. Partial least squares regression results indicated that plant-available P was strongly related to soil Mn and Ca content, while total P was more strongly related to organic C and wetness index. These results suggest that soil P can vary widely, even in nutrient-poor boreal ecosystems, and site-specific characteristics may play an important role in predicting variability.

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)0.000
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 score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.485

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 head0.220
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFACETSSame topicPeatlands and Wetlands EcologyFrench-language works237,207