Increased boron concentrations of Scots pine foliage induced by green pruning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The responses of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) foliar boron (B) concentrations to artificial defoliation by green pruning were studied by examining sample trees for 3 years after the treatments. In winter, concentrations of boron in foliage were determined individually from needles on the lateral top shoots of 168 sample trees (at the beginning 28 m, at the end 410 m tall). To prevent the pruning residues from affecting the nutrition of the sample trees, all pruned branches were transported away from the research area. Before pruning, there were no differences in foliar B among the pruning classes. Reduction of the living crown by pruning (LCRP, % of the initial crown ratio) 50% or more increased the concentrations of foliar B drastically for 3 years. The increase was greatest in the largest trees with the highest LCRP (about 70%), where the mean concentrations of foliar B one year after pruning were nearly 180% higher than in the unpruned trees. Pruning of the dead branch whorls or only the few lowest living whorls did not affect the boron nutrition of the trees. In the current study, the ability of rapid and sufficiently large defoliation to increase B concentrations for several years in the Scots pine foliage was confirmed experimentally; earlier suggestions have been based on analyses made after defoliation. The potential suitability of green pruning is discussed as a method for improving the boron status of trees in boron-deficient areas.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 teacher head, 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".