Clone-Specific Response in Leaf Nitrate Reductase Activity among Unrelated Hybrid Poplars in relation to Soil Nitrate Availability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this field study, we usedin vivoNRA activity in hybrid poplar leaves as an indicator of NO3- assimilation for five unrelated hybrid poplar clones. We also examined if leaf NRA of these clones is influenced to the same extent by different levels of soil NO3- availability in two riparian agroforestry systems located in pastures. Leaf NRA differences of more than one order of magnitude were observed between the clones, clearly showing their different abilities to reduce NO3- in leaves. Clone DxN-3570, aP. deltoidesxP. nigrahybrid (Aigeirosintrasectional hybrid), always had the highest leaf NRA during the field assays. This clone was also the only one to increase its leaf NRA with increasing NO3- soil availability, which resulted in a significant Site x Clone interaction and a positive relationship between soil NO3- concentration and NRA. All of the four other clones studied had one or both parental species from theTacamahacasection. They had relatively low leaf NRA and they did not increase their leaf NRA when grown on the NO3- rich site. These results provide evidence that NO3- assimilation in leaves varies widely among hybrid poplars of different parentages, suggesting potential preferences for N forms.
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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".