MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414430612 · doi:10.1139/er-2025-0045

Limitations and strengths of indicators for evaluating the nitrogen status of forest ecosystems

2025· article· en· W4414430612 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Geshere Abdisa Gurmesa, W. de Vries, Weixing Zhu, Per Gundersen, Erik A. Hobbie, Ang Wang, Abubakari Said Mgelwa, Yihang Duan, Feifei Zhu, Ronghua Kang, Zhi Quan, Yunting Fang

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Reviews · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLichen and fungal ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersChinese Academy of SciencesNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsIndicator valueSpecies richnessForest ecologyEcosystemNutrientPrecipitationEcological indicatorNitrate

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Anthropogenic nitrogen (N) deposition has increased N availability in many forest ecosystems. In contrast, global changes such as elevated atmospheric CO 2 , longer growing season under warming, and increased precipitation may stimulate plant growth, intensifying biotic demand for N. These diverging trends influence the N status of forests, reflecting the balance between N supply and demand and indicating whether a forest is in a state of N limitation, transition phase, or N saturation. Numerous direct and indirect indicators are used to evaluate forest N status. However, an overview of their effectiveness for N status assessments, which require established threshold values between different phases, is limited. Here, we review N status indicators and their threshold values to evaluate their effectiveness in revealing changes in forest N status. In addition, we assess whether indicators provide insights into forest health conditions such as defoliation, nutritional status, species richness of the forest understory, the prevalence of diseases, and forest growth dynamics. The N status indicators included are categorized as tree-related (N content of foliage, foliage or nutrient ratios particularly N:P, natural 15 N abundance (δ 15 N) of foliage and wood), soil-related (soil C:N, inorganic N concentrations, N transformation rates, δ 15 N of soil, enrichment factor), and ecosystem-related (litterfall N flux, nitrate leaching, and N 2 O emissions). Our synthesis suggests that while most indicators are useful to assess N availability, the majority lack clearly defined thresholds to identify N saturation and N limitation. Similarly, we found that the majority of indicators cannot be used for assessing forest health conditions. As most indicators assess specific components of the forest N cycle, a comprehensive assessment of forest N status requires combining indicators to evaluate changes in multiple N cycling processes. This review guides the selection of indicators for assessing forest N status by evaluating their effectiveness in detecting N saturation or limitation, reflecting forest health conditions, responsiveness to N deposition, and the required research effort.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.563
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental ReviewsSame topicLichen and fungal ecologyFrench-language works237,207