A comparison of ammonium, nitrate and proton net fluxes along seedling roots of Douglas‐fir and lodgepole pine grown and measured with different inorganic nitrogen sources
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Significant spatial variability in NH4+, NO3- and H+ net fluxes was measured in roots of young seedlings of Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) with ion-selective microelectrodes. Seedlings were grown with NH4+, NO3-, NH4NO3 or no nitrogen (N), and were measured in solutions containing one or both N ions, or no N in a full factorial design. Net NO3- and NH4+ uptake and H+ efflux were greater in Douglas-fir than lodgepole pine and in roots not exposed to N in pretreatment. In general, the rates of net NH4+ uptake were the same in the presence or absence of NO3-, and vice versa. The highest NO3- influx occurred 0-30 mm from the root apex in Douglas-fir and 0-10 mm from the apex in lodgepole pine. Net NH4+ flux was zero or negative (efflux) at Douglas-fir root tips, and the highest NH4+ influx occurred 5-20 mm from the root tip. Lodgepole pine had some NH4+ influx at the root tips, and the maximum net uptake 5 mm from the root tip. Net H+ efflux was greatest in the first 10 mm of roots of both species. This study demonstrates that nutrient uptake by conifer roots can vary significantly across different regions of the root, and indicates that ion flux profiles along the roots may be influenced by rates of root growth and maturation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".