The physiological responses of oak seedlings to warm storage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of warm storage (15 °C) on the physiological responses and subsequent field performance of 2-year-old oak (Quercus robur L.) seedlings that had been cold (12 °C) stored until May were assessed. Shoot xylem pressure potential, shoot water content, shoot tip dry mass, root electrolyte leakage, and root growth potential were evaluated at regular intervals during the 21-day warm storage period. The date of lifting to cold storage had little effect on the physiological responses to warm storage. Root electrolyte leakage increased after 7 days of storage, despite the fact that root growth potential and survival were unaffected. Values then increased further before decreasing again by the end of the 21-day storage period to values similar to those recorded after 0 or 7 days of storage. Storage for up to 21 days greatly reduced root growth potential and shoot quality after planting in the field. The shoot xylem pressure potential of seedlings declined during the early stage of warm storage, but then increased to values similar to those recorded after cold storage. Shoot water content increased during the early storage period, then declined slightly, but values were higher after 21 days of storage than at the time of placement in warm storage. While most physiological responses fluctuated in a consistent manner, these changes were not necessarily predictable. Root growth potential was a good indicator of plant field performance potential, but the other physiological parameters were less useful to this end.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".