Interactive effects of fertilization and throughfall exclusion on the physiological responses and whole-tree carbon uptake of mature loblolly pine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Few studies have examined the combined effects of nutrition and water exclusion on the canopy physiology of mature loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.). Understanding the impacts of forest management on plantation productivity requires extensive research on the relationship between silvicultural treatments and environmental constraints to growth. We studied the physiological responses of 18-year-old loblolly pine trees exposed to a combination of fertilization (fertilizer or no fertilizer) and throughfall (normal throughfall or throughfall exclusion). Gas exchange variables were measured in the upper and lower crown between 0900 and 1700 h from May to November in 1999. Needle fall was collected to estimate foliage mass and leaf area. Summer drought and throughfall exclusion significantly decreased predawn xylem pressure potential. Needle-level photosynthesis, transpiration, and stomatal conductance declined during the drought and were significantly lower in the throughfall exclusion treatment. Throughfall exclusion also reduced annual foliage mass and daily whole-crown photosynthesis and transpiration. In the normal throughfall treatment, fertilization had no effect on needle-level physiology, but increased annual foliage mass and whole-crown photosynthesis by 26% and 41%, respectively. With the exclusion of throughfall, however, annual foliage mass and daily whole-crown photosynthesis exhibited little response to fertilization. We conclude that greater nutrient availability enhances the carbon uptake of mature loblolly pine trees by stimulating foliage production, but the positive effects of fertilization on leaf area and carbon fixation are limited by low water availability.Key words: foliage mass, photosynthesis, Pinus taeda, seasonal trend, transpiration, xylem pressure potential.
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".