Effects of Waterlogging on Growth and Physiology of Hopea odorata Roxb
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the growth and physiological characteristics of Hopea odorata growing under waterloggingcondition. H. odorata was selected as it is widely planted as urban landscape tree species which experienced some growthstresses. Two waterlogging treatments and a control were designed. Forty 5-year old saplings each were subjected towaterlogged condition for 30 days which were then allowed to recover for a further 30 days as Treatment 1 (T1) andwaterlogged condition for 60 days as Treatment 2 (T2). Aboveground and belowground biomass including leaf area wasdetermined before and at 30 and 60 days of study. The net photosynthesis (Anet), stomatal conductance (Gs), transpirationrate per unit leaf area (EL) and leaf to air vapour pressure deficit (????W) were assessed weekly for 60 days. The resultsshowed that there were no significant differences between treatments for all growth attributes. There were also nosignificant reductions of these attributes found within treatments throughout the experimental period. Furthermore, nosignificant effects were observed in gas exchange variables. The results demonstrate that severe waterlogged conditiondid not affect the physiology of H. odorata. These findings add to the increasing evidences that H. odorata is a flood aswell as a pollution tolerance species that ensuring it to survive and grow well in urban areas by regulating the partitioningstrategies.
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) | 0.000 | 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".