MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2075856199 · doi:10.1139/b02-047

The effect of ectomycorrhizae on water relations in aspen (<i>Populus tremuloides</i>) and white spruce (<i>Picea glauca</i>) at low soil temperatures

2002· article· en· W2075856199 on OpenAlexfundvenueno aff
Simon M. Landhäusser, Tawfik M. Muhsin, Janusz J. Zwiazek

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Botany · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsStomatal conductanceTranspirationShootBotanyGrowing seasonTaigaSoil waterWater potentialBiologySalicaceaeWoody plantAgronomyHorticultureChemistryEcologyPhotosynthesis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Low soil temperatures, common during the growing season in northern forests, have the potential to impede plant growth. In this study, water uptake, water relations, and growth characteristics were examined in aspen (Populus tremuloides) and white spruce (Picea glauca) seedlings that were inoculated with ectomycorrhizal fungi and grown at 20°C daytime air temperatures and low soil temperatures of 4°C and 8°C. Mycorrhizal associations had little effect on root and shoot biomass at both soil temperatures. Root hydraulic conductance (K r ) was higher in both mycorrhizal plant species compared to nonmycorrhizal plants, but there was no soil temperature effect on K r in either species. Mycorrhizae also increased shoot water potential (Ψ w ) in Populus tremuloides but had no effect on Ψ w in Picea glauca. The increases in K r and Ψ w were not reflected by changes in stomatal conductance (g s ) and transpiration rates (E), suggesting that the reduction of water flow in seedlings exposed to low soil temperature was not likely the factor limiting g s in both plant species.Key words: boreal forest, root hydraulic conductance, root growth, stomatal conductance, water uptake.

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 score0.096
Threshold uncertainty score0.918

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.161
Teacher spread0.158 · 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

Citations47
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of BotanySame topicPlant Water Relations and Carbon DynamicsFrench-language works237,207