MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2072901499 · doi:10.1139/b05-140

Annual growth of the spring ephemeral <i>Erythronium americanum</i> as a function of temperature and mycorrhizal status

2006· article· en· W2072901499 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Line Lapointe, Sylvain Lerat

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Botany · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsEpigealNutrientBiologyHorticultureBotanyAgronomyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The capacity of the spring ephemeral Erythronium americanum L. to grow and absorb nutrient either as nonmycorrhizal (NM) or mycorrhizal (M) plants under the low temperature regime characteristic of its growth period was investigated. Specimens of E. americanum were collected in the field as either NM (early September) or as M plants (late October). Both groups of plants were submitted to different nutrient regimes during the hypogeous growth period at 5 °C, and during the subsequent epigeous growth period conducted at temperature regimes of either 12 °C day : 10 °C night or 17 °C day : 15 °C night. Nutrient regime influenced bulb nutrient content only during the epigeous growth period. The presence of mycorrhizas did not influence nutrient content, but favoured a greater bulb biomass at the final harvest (epigeous growth period), as did the lower temperature regime. Net nutrient uptake was not reduced at lower temperatures and appeared to follow plant demand. These findings confirm that E. americanum is adapted to perform better under a low temperature regime and that mineral nutrition in this species occurs mainly in spring in response to active growth. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi benefit E. americanum maybe through less expensive nutrient uptake or sustained carbon sink demand.

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)0.000
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 score0.419
Threshold uncertainty score0.981

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.160
Teacher spread0.157 · 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

Citations46
Published2006
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of BotanySame topicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant InteractionsFrench-language works237,207