Coarse and fine root respiration in aspen (Populus tremuloides)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Coarse and fine root respiration rates of aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.) were measured at 5, 15 and 25 degrees C. Coarse roots ranged from 0.65 to 4.45 cm in diameter, whereas fine roots were less than 5 mm in diameter. To discriminate between maintenance and growth respiration, root respiration rates were measured during aboveground growing periods and dormant periods. An additional measurement of coarse root respiration was made during spring leaf flush, to evaluate the effect of mobilization of resources for leaf expansion on root respiration. Fine roots respired at much higher rates than coarse roots, with a mean rate at 15 degrees C of 1290 micromol CO2 m-3 s-1 during the growing period, and 660 micromol CO2 m-3 s-1 during the dormant period. The temperature response of fine root respiration rate was nonlinear: mean Q10 was 3.90 for measurements made at 5-15 degrees C and 2.19 for measurements made at 15-25 degrees C. Coarse root respiration rates measured at 15 degrees C in late fall (dormant season) were higher (370 micromol CO2 m-3 s-1) than rates from roots collected at leaf flush and early summer (200 micromol CO2 m-3 s-1). The higher respiration rates in late fall, which were accompanied by decreased total nonstructural carbohydrate (TNC) concentrations, suggest that respiration rates in late fall included growth expenditures, reflecting recent radial growth. Neither bud flush nor shoot growth of the trees caused an increase in coarse root respiration or a decrease in TNC concentrations, suggesting a limited role of coarse roots as reserve storage organs for spring shoot growth, and a lack of synchronization between above- and belowground growth. Pooling the data from the coarse and fine roots showed a positive correlation between nitrogen concentration and respiration rate.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".