MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011792113 · doi:10.1080/01904167.2012.744039

EFFECTS OF NITRATE AND AMMONIUM ON WATER RELATIONS OF TREMBLING ASPEN SEEDLINGS IN SOLUTION CULTURE

2012· article· en· W2011792113 on OpenAlexaff
Jan Siemens, Janusz J. Zwiazek

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Plant Nutrition · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant nutrient uptake and metabolism
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmmoniumSeedlingNitrateChemistryNitrogenAmmonium nitrateAgronomyHorticultureBotanyAnimal scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examined the effects of high concentrations (4, 8, or 16 mM) of nitrate (NO3) and ammonium (NH4) on water relations and growth of trembling aspen seedlings in solution culture. In contrast to 16 mM ammonium, after four weeks of treatments, the 16 mM nitrate treatment resulted in the highest growth rates, root hydraulic conductivity and aquaporin-mediated root water flux. At lower (4 and 8 mM) ammonium concentrations, seedling growth and water relations were comparable to equivalent nitrate concentrations. When after the four weeks of treatments, ammonium concentrations were reduced by 50% (to 2, 4 and 8 mM) for additional 4 weeks, slight increases in seedling growth and water relations as well as decreases in mortality were observed indicating that aspen seedlings were capable of recovery from higher ammonium concentrations. The results indicate that aspen seedlings are tolerant of high nitrate concentrations, but intolerant of high ammonium concentrations. The study also suggested that ammonium was not toxic to aspen seedlings at moderate concentrations and that the seedlings were capable of assimilating and utilizing both ammonium and nitrate as a nitrogen source.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.177
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.189 · 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 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

Citations4
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Plant NutritionSame topicPlant nutrient uptake and metabolismFrench-language works237,207