Ecophysiological responses of four boreal tree species to soil nitrogen supply
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The ecophysiological responses of four boreal tree species, trembling aspen \n(Populus tremuloides Michx.), black spruce (Picea mariana (Mill.) B.S.P.), white spruce \n(Picea glauca (Moench) Voss), and jack pine (Pinus banksiana Lamb.) were examined at \nsix different levels (from 25 to 775 ppm) of soil nitrogen (N). At the 50th and 100th day of \ntreatment, two-year-old conifer seedlings and six-month-old trembling aspen seedlings were \nmeasured for gas exchange, foliar N concentration, growth and biomass allocation traits. \nThe gas exchange and resource use efficiency responses varied with species. The \nadditional N input had no significant effect on photosynthesis (see document) and positive \neffect on transpiration (E, mmol/m2/s), and beyond 175 ppm N treatment it produced \nnegative effect on whole seedling photosynthetic capacity (see document) in trembling \naspen. A, E and At in conifers responded negatively to N treatment, except for a brief \npositive response from 25 to 125 ppm N in jack pine. <l>PSII \n revealed relevant relationship \nwith A but only for jack pine and white spruce. We found explicit positive response of \nfoliar N concentration and negative response of PNUE to increasing soil N availability. \nHowever, the trends of PWUE between species varied across six N treatments and possibly \ndue to luxury consumption. The PWUE was positively correlated with soil N supply in only \nwhite spruce and was negatively correlated in other species. The sufficient soil N \navailability for optimum gas exchange and nutritional status were at 75 ppm N for black \nspruce and at 125 for the other three species. \nOverall, the growth response of aspen to N was more pronounced than that of \nconifers due to its fast growing nature. Significant growth response of aspen occurred \nbetween the 75 to 175 ppm N treatments. Substantial growth reduction occurred when \naspen seedlings were induced to excessively high soil N concentrations (375 and 775 ppm), \nspecifically due to the vulnerability of these seedlings to pest damages. This is also related \nto the significant increase in foliar N concentration at these N treatments. Greatest growth \nwas achieved at 25 ppm N addition rate in black spruce and jack pine, and most notables at \n125 ppm N in white spruce. However, these N levels are not conclusive when optimum soil \nN concentration(s) for gas exchange parameters, particularly for At, in these seedlings are \ntaken into consideration. Nonetheless, at highest soil N supply (375 and 775 ppm), the \ngrowth of conifer seedlings was not as adversely affected as that of aspen seedlings. Our \nresults also proved strong significance of N availability on biomass allocation between root \nand shoot components and height growth in all species. Root production was significantly suppressed as soil N availability increased in the conifers. The opposite was found in aspen. \nIn conifers, the proportions of total seedling biomass allocated to roots (or the root-toshoot \nratio, R/S), at all N treatments, were highest in white spruce, followed by black \nspruce then jack pine. The R/S ratio in aspen was comparable with, but followed an \nopposite pattern to, white spruce. The stem and foliage productions in all studied species \nshowed negligible positive response to increasing soil N treatments. However, with the \nexception of aspen, the order of the species allocating highest to lowest portions of its total \nbiomass to the foliage followed the exact opposite pattern as that of root allocation \npercentage. Aspen showed lesser biomass allocation to the foliage than conifers. However, \nit allocated highest percentages of total seedling biomass to the stem, at all N treatments, \nfollowed in sequential order by black spruce, white spruce and jack pine. \nWhen all ecophysiological parameters are considered, our results indicated that low \nsoil N availability, such as that at 25 ppm, does not adversely affect the boreal seedling \ngrowth and survival as much as it does at excessively high soil N availability (e.g., 375 and \n775 ppm). Within the sufficient N regimes (i.e., 75 - 175 ppm), the most suitable soil N \nconcentration for black spruce is at 75 ppm and at 125 ppm for other species.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».