Leaf mass loss in wetland graminoids during senescence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mass loss of senescing leaves is an important part of plant biomass turnover and has consequences for assessment of ecosystem productivity, ecosystem nutrient use efficiency, and plant nutrient resorption efficiency. Data, however, on mass loss are scarce, and often based on leaf area as the reference base. This leads to an underestimation of the mass loss, as leaf area itself shrinks during senescence. Furthermore, the few existing studies have almost exclusively used woody species. The purpose of the present study was twofold: i) to assess leaf mass loss during senescence in herbaceous species, with the example of five wetland graminoids and, ii) to compare two different methods of mass loss assessment (two species). Assuming that leaf length does not change during senescence, we assessed leaf mass per leaf length prior to and after senescence. We also estimated pre‐senescence leaf mass nondestructively based on leaf length, width and thickness. For Typha latifolia and Carex stricta , two species with graminoid type leaves but contrasting leaf structure, both methods delivered almost identical results. After the first assessment of leaf mass on July 7th, T. latifolia leaf mass initially increased by 13%, and then decreased to be 12% below the original mass after senescence. C. stricta leaf mass remained stable until senescence, but decreased then by 33%. In a second experiment, the mass of 100 mm pieces of leaves was measured before and after senescence. Calamagrostis canadensis , Carex rostrata and C. stricta lost 23–57% of their leaf mass during senescence, whereas Glyceria canadensis did not show any mass loss. We conclude that mass loss of senescing leaves of herbaceous plants can be considerable and should not be neglected in studies of productivity, nutrient use efficiency or nutrient resorption. For species with no shrinking leaf length during senescence, mass loss can be measured with leaf length as the base whereas for others, pre‐senescent mass can be estimated on the basis of leaf dimensions.
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 | 0.001 |
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".