MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6930392842 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.11370397

Coastal Foredune Belowground Biomass, Aboveground Biomass, and Species Cover

2020· dataset· en· W6930392842 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2020
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEthics in Business and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
KeywordsTransectBiomass (ecology)Plant coverSand dune stabilizationSedimentPlant communityForedune

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We collected data from cross-shore transects at seven sites; three categorized as unmanaged (i.e., Corolla Reserve, the northern dunes of the US Army Engineer Research and Development Center [ERDC] Field Research Facility [FRF North], and dunes in the southern reaches of that same site [FRF South]) and four categorized as managed (i.e., Southern Shores, Nags Head, Pine Island and Duck). Sediment vibracores (n = 15 managed, 10 unmanaged) were collected between September and December 2020 at the dune toe, dune face, crest and back along a single transect at each site. Cores were stored at 4 °C and processed within one week of collection to prevent root degradation. Cores were bisected longitudinally and the sediment from each half was segmented into 30 cm sections from the ground surface (i.e., 0–30 cm, 31–60 cm, 61–90 cm, 91–120 cm, 121–150 cm). To separate belowground biomass, core sections were wet sieved using stacked 3.36 mm, 1.0 mm and 0.5 mm mesh-size sieves. Living belowground biomass was characterized as the sample portions with roots, rhizomes and belowground stems that were still flexible and did not exhibit signs of decomposition. All other biotic material was classified as non-living biomass (e.g., decayed plant material, twigs, seeds, wrack). Within the living belowground biomass component, live roots were separated from other belowground structures (rhizomes, belowground-stems) and scanned using an Epson Perfection V800 Photo electric scanner calibrated for image analysis with WinRhizo™ Pro 2019a by Regent Instruments (Regent Instruments Inc, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada). Images were analyzed to quantify root surface area by diameter size class. Fine roots were defined as those with < 1 mm diameter. All living and non-living belowground biomass was oven-dried at 60 °C for 72 hours and weighed. Soil organic matter content was quantified by loss-on-ignition following manual removal of roots. Samples (1 g of sediment from each core section) were baked in a muffle furnace at 550 °C for 5 hours and reweighed to estimate soil organic matter content (%). Aliquots (300 mg) of each core segment were submitted to the Cornell Stable Isotope Laboratory for % carbon (C) and % nitrogen (N) analysis. Due to cost, only the top 90 cm of soils were sent for C and N analysis. Vegetation surveys were conducted during Summer 2021. We established vegetation survey plots (0.25 m­­2 plot size) centered on each exact coring location. We estimated vegetation cover by species (within 0.25 m2 plot), cover of bare ground, dead plant cover. Adjacent to the coring plots, aboveground biomass (within a 0.1 x 1 m plot) was collected to complement belowground biomass sampling at all sites except Duck, where grasses had been manually planted and permission to harvest aboveground biomass was not granted to maintain the vegetation on the dune face. Aboveground biomass was oven-dried at 60 °C for 72 hours, weighed and scaled to g m-2. More details can be found in the manuscript: White AE, Cohn N, Davis EH, Hein CJ, Zinnert JC. Coastal dune management affects above and belowground biotic characteristics. Scientific Reports (in press).

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)0.001
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: Dataset · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.181
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.165 · 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
GenreDataset

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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)Same topicEthics in Business and EducationFrench-language works237,207