Signals controlling root suckering and adventitious shoot formation in aspen (Populus tremuloides)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We determined the effects of removal of leaves, stem axillary buds, or the entire shoot on root suckering (adventitious shoot formation by roots) and basal stem sprouts in 3- and 4-year-old potted seedlings of aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.). The greatest number of root suckers (67.9 +/- 8.5 per plant) emerged after excision of the entire shoot. Defoliated and debudded stems were the major source of inhibitory agents for root suckering, although axillary buds and developing new leaves also exerted a significant inhibitory effect. Removal of mature leaves had only a minor effect on root suckering. Removal of a continuous band of bark (girdling) at the base of the stem consistently stimulated growth of adventitious shoots from the stem below the girdle and occasionally promoted root suckering. Exogenous application of indole-3-acetic acid to excised stumps inhibited root suckering and basal stem sprouting. Naphthylphthalamic acid (NPA), an auxin polar transport inhibitor, had no effect on root suckering or stem sprouting when it was applied to the bark of the basal stem. However, NPA significantly increased root suckering when it was applied to the exposed surface of xylem after girdling. These results suggest that polar transport of auxin in the xylem parenchyma is an important inhibitor of root suckering. On decapitated stems, vacuum extraction of xylem sap from the root system lowered the frequency of root suckering compared with decapitation alone, indicating that substance(s) originating in the root system also play a significant role in controlling root suckering.
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".