MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104533137 · doi:10.1139/x06-120

Influence of nutrition and stress on sugar maple at a regional scale

2006· article· en· W2104533137 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Richard A. Hallett, Scott W. Bailey, Stephen B. Horsley, Robert P. Long

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAluminum toxicity and tolerance in plants and animals
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsMapleSugarAceraceaeYellow birchBiologyBotanyFood science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sugar maple (Acer saccharum Marsh.) decline disease on the Allegheny Plateau (region 1) resulted in high levels of mortality during the 1990s. Sugar maple was predisposed to decline because of an imbalance in Mg, Ca, and Mn nutrition and incited to decline by repeated defoliation. We sampled 33 stands in New York, Vermont, and New Hampshire (region 2) to determine if this model of sugar maple decline applies to a broader region. Low Ca and Mg and higher Mn levels were correlated with poorer tree health in both regions, but region 2 stands had little defoliation and few dead trees, suggesting that both unbalanced nutrition and stress are required for mortality to occur. We predict that stands with low foliar Ca and Mg and high Mn levels would incur increased mortality if stressed. In region 2, relationships between Ca, Mg, and Mn levels and dieback suggested that impacts on sugar maple may be caused by nutritional imbalance alone. Partial correlation analysis suggests that antagonism between Mg and Mn is the most important nutritional factor in region 1, while Mn supply is most important in region 2. We suggest that more research is needed on the interacting roles played by Ca, Mg, Al, and Mn in sugar maple performance.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.109

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations80
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicAluminum toxicity and tolerance in plants and animalsFrench-language works237,207