MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2053116214 · doi:10.1139/x05-102

Deep subsoil nutrient uptake in potassium-deficient, aggrading <i>Pinus resinosa</i> plantation

2005· article· en· W2053116214 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Charles A. Z. Buxbaum, Christopher A. Nowak, Edwin H. White

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSeedling growth and survival studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Forest ServiceU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsSubsoilNutrientPotassiumAgronomyEnvironmental scienceChemistryBotanySoil waterBiologySoil science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Growth of Pinus resinosa Ait. (red pine) on a potassium-deficient sandy soil at the Charles Lathrop Pack Demonstration Forest in Warrensburg, New York, is influenced by fine-textured lenses at 2–3 m below grade. A possible mechanism for an observed increase in surface soil potassium over time is nutrient uptake by red pine roots penetrating into these fine-textured, subsoil layers, and subsequent cycling of these nutrients between foliage and surface soil horizons. To test this hypothesis, we applied nutrient tracers directly to the deep subsoil and measured their uptake over several growing seasons: Strontium was applied in 1989 and 1993, while rubidium-free potassium (the Rb/K reverse tracer method) was applied only in 1993. Trees treated in 1989 had significantly greater concentrations of foliar and bud strontium than control trees, and trees treated only in 1993 also demonstrated significant uptake of potassium 2 years after treatment. These effects were present regardless of whether the trees had been surface-fertilized with potassium five decades earlier. The results demonstrate the importance of subsoil nutrient pools in forest ecosystem function.

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)0.002
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.575
Threshold uncertainty score0.982

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations10
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicSeedling growth and survival studiesFrench-language works237,207