Root growth response to water and nutrients in the New Jersey Pinelands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resource limitation theory regarding water versus nutrient limitation predicts on the one hand that, because of uptake trade-offs, increases in water will increase limitation by nutrients; on the other hand, because of supply interactions, increases in water will lead to correlated increases in nutrient availability. Using root ingrowth into resource-enriched soil cores as an assay of resource limitation, we report the effect of variable water supply on two experiments in the New Jersey Pinelands. In the first experiment in an upland oak–pine habitat, root ingrowth was highest in nitrogen-enriched cores in a wet year and highest in water-enriched cores in a dry year. In the second experiment in four vegetation types that differ in water table depth, roots grew more into nitrogen-enriched cores in all habitats, but nitrogen cores did not stimulate more ingrowth in wet (pitch pine lowland, hardwood swamp) versus dry habitats (pine–oak upland, oak–pine upland). Experiment 1 is consistent with the expectation that increasing water will increase relative limitation by mineral nutrients, but experiment 2 is not. Experiment 2 is consistent with an alternate hypothesis that long-term plant–soil feedback will result in higher nutrient acquisition in sites of higher water availability.
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) | 0.001 | 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".