MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971198830 · doi:10.1139/x04-022

Response of trembling and hybrid aspens to phosphorus and sulfur fertilization in a Gray Luvisol: growth and nutrient uptake

2004· article· en· W1971198830 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Liang He, Scott X. Chang

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil and Water Nutrient Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGuangxi University
KeywordsHuman fertilizationPhosphorusNutrientBotanyHorticultureSeedlingChemistrySulfurAgronomyLimitingBiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A greenhouse experiment was conducted to investigate the effects of P and S fertilization on the growth and nutrition of two aspens, a clonal aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.) and a hybrid aspen (a mixture of Populus tremu loides × P. tremula L. and Populus tremula × P. tremuloides), grown in a Gray Luvisol fertilized with N. Phosphorus application significantly increased basal diameter (BD) increment and most other growth parameters for both clonal and hybrid aspens, whereas S application increased BD increment only for the hybrid aspen. Diameter increment, leaf area, and seedling biomass were generally increased by P application, regardless of S levels, but they responded to S application only if P was also applied. Phosphorus application significantly increased foliar P concentrations and foliar N and P contents and their uptake for the clonal aspen. For the hybrid aspen, P application increased foliar N, P, and S concentrations, contents, and uptake. Sulfur application significantly increased foliar S concentration, content, and uptake for the hybrid aspen but not foliar N concentration, content, and uptake for the clonal aspen. Except for height increment, growth parameters were significantly related to foliar percent P and N/P ratios and percent S and N/S ratios. It can be concluded that both P and S were deficient, but P was more limiting after potential N limitation was removed.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.992
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations27
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicSoil and Water Nutrient DynamicsFrench-language works237,207