Factors contributing to the superior growth and N nutrition of 11-year-old lodgepole pine compared with Sitka spruce on a N-poor cedar-hemlock cutover
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We tested several hypotheses to explain the superior growth and nitrogen (N) status of lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta Dougl. ex Laws. var. contorta) compared with Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis (Bong.) Carrière) on a N-poor site by comparing N distribution, N retranslocation, rooting distribution, and mycorrhizal fungi in plots of 11-year-old trees on a cedarhemlock cutover. Aboveground N content was nine times greater in pine than in spruce of the same age, and thus, we conclude that pine acquired more N during the 11 years than spruce. Greater N acquisition by pine was not related to rooting depth, as both species rooted primarily in the residual forest floor. There were differences in mycorrhizal fungal associates: a high proportion of pine roots were infected with Suillus-like fungi. Pine produced more aboveground biomass per unit N (388 compared with 292 g·g1 in spruce) and distributed more N to young foliage. Nitrogen retranslocation efficiency (based on foliar N contents in July and October) was higher in pine (5052%) than in spruce (2436%). These characteristics all appear to contribute to pine's abilities to both acquire more N and use it more efficiently and, thus, outperform spruce on this N-poor site.
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 | 0.001 | 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".