MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412564074 · doi:10.1139/cjb-2025-0059

Understory plant species-specific effects on subarctic soil fertility

2025· article· en· W4412564074 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Emily Klapprat, John Markham

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRangeland and Wildlife Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Manitoba
KeywordsUnderstoryBiologySubarctic climateBotanySoil fertilityEcologyAgronomySoil waterCanopy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although climate is the primary driver of soil fertility, plant functional traits can alter soil properties, creating a feedback between plants and soil fertility. In the lichen woodlands of the northern boreal forest, this feedback may be exemplified by slow growing ericaceous shrubs producing leaf litter that creates nutrient poor soils. We examined the soil of a lichen woodland in an area where fire had removed the organic layer 26 years previously and monospecific patches of ericaceous and non-ericaceous shrubs had developed, and the soil in an intact forest under the same species. In the burn site, soil inorganic N levels were four times higher under Salix candida Willd. than under Empetrum nigrum L. Soil from under S. candida in the forest also had a higher rate of respiration than soil under either ericaceous shrub. A growth assay with Leymus mollis, which is known to respond to nutrient additions in this region, showed twice as much growth in soil taken from under S. candida, regardless of whether the soil was collected from the forest or burn site. These results show that plant species can be a strong driver of soil fertility at a small spatial scale, even under harsh climatic conditions.

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 score0.010

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicRangeland and Wildlife ManagementFrench-language works237,207