Leaf area renewal, root retention and carbohydrate reserves in a clonal tree species following above‐ground disturbance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Removal of the above‐ground portion of clonally regenerating trees results in a massive imbalance in the ratio of root to leaf area. We investigated the resilience of clones following above‐ground disturbance in terms of root carbohydrates, leaf area renewal and root retention. In a 2 × 2 factorial experiment, 40 Populus tremuloides saplings were cut at times of high (late fall) or low (spring after leaf flush) root carbohydrate reserves. Leaf area renewal was manipulated by allowing either only one or all root suckers to re‐grow. Root starch concentrations were 10 times higher at the time of cutting in the fall compared with the spring, whereas sugar concentrations were only 10% higher. When saplings were cut in fall and all suckers were allowed to develop (FA treatment), suckers were taller, and had more biomass and leaf area and higher leaf area ratio than all other treatments. In particular, leaf area and leaf area ratio recovered within a year to near pre‐treatment levels compared with at least a 50% reduction in the other treatments. At the end of the first season after cutting FA saplings also had the greatest root mass and lowest amount of dead root mass, and root starch concentrations of these saplings had returned to pre‐treatment values, compared with a 20% recovery for spring‐cut saplings with a single sucker. Root mass and root starch concentrations were correlated with leaf mass in all treatments. Adequate carbohydrate reserves at the time of disturbance and rapid redevelopment of leaf area by extensive sprouting seem critical for resilience of the clone and allow for the retention of the clonal root system and a rapid rebuilding of carbohydrate reserves. Clones with poor sucker and leaf area development showed extensive root mortality and reduced carbohydrate reserves and their prospects for growth in the following year were comparatively poor.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 teacher head, 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".