Growth and nutrient uptake by birch and maple seedlings on soil with patchy or homogeneous distribution of organic matter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We compare responses to soil heterogeneity of red maple (Acer rubrum L.) and gray birch (Betula pop ulifolia Marsh.). Seedlings were grown with root systems split between two pots with soil: (i) without additional organic matter or nutrients ("no-addition" treatment), (ii) with additional organic matter and nutrients distributed evenly throughout the soil ("mixed" treatment), and (iii) with additional organic matter and nutrients concentrated in one pot ("patch" treatment). Compared with the no-addition treatment, mixed and patch treatments resulted in taller plants, and greater leaf and total plant dry masses for birch, while growth of maple was mostly unaffected. Birch root biomass was significantly increased in the organic patch. Specific root length of fine roots (<1 mm diameter) in the organic patch was twice as large for birch than for maple. Total plant biomass and N and P contents did not differ between mixed and patch treatments, possibly because the contrast between N and P concentrations between patch and non-patch soil was too small. In all treatments, birches took up more N than maples. In addition, the faster localized root growth and larger specific root length indicate a greater potential for birch than for maple to exploit heterogeneous soils.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".