MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010634987 · doi:10.1080/02827580310019301

Nitrogen-15 Uptake by<i>Pinus contorta</i>Seedlings in Relation to Phenological Stage and Season

2004· article· en· W2010634987 on OpenAlexaff
I.G. Amponsah, Victor J. Lieffers, Philip G. Comeau, Simon M. Landhäusser

Bibliographic record

VenueScandinavian Journal of Forest Research · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSeedling growth and survival studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaCanadian Forest ServiceNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPinus contortaPhenologyHuman fertilizationFertilizerNitrogenAgronomyGrowing seasonSpring (device)BiologyPinus <genus>BorealBotanyHorticultureChemistryEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study measured the amount of uptake of labeled nitrogen (15N) of lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta Dougl. var. latifolia Engelm) seedlings, at three different phenological stages, in a growth chamber experiment. Thirty days after 15N application, the amount of 15N recovered in seedlings as a percentage of the total 15N fertilizer applied was 4% in early spring, 43% in summer and 33% in autumn. The total 15N recovered in the plant–pot system ranged from 80 to 96%, and is higher than reported in other studies. Total 15N recovered from the pot compartment alone ranged from 48 to 95%, suggesting that substantial pools of N remain in the soil. Results suggest that low 15N uptake in the spring was associated with limited development of new root as a result of low spring soil temperatures. The lack of unsuberized roots in spring could be a key factor decreasing the effectiveness of early spring fertilization in the boreal forest.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.406

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations14
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScandinavian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicSeedling growth and survival studiesFrench-language works237,207