Soil nutrition and temperature as drivers of root suckering in trembling aspen
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In two separate studies, the suckering of trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.) roots was assessed in response to different daily maximum soil temperatures and in relation to available nutrients (CaSO4 and NH4NO3). In the first study, aspen root sections were incubated under high:low temperature regimes of 12:8, 14:8, 16:8, 18:8, or 20:8°C until 124 degree-days above 8°C had been reached. Daily maximum temperature did not affect the number of suckers produced per square centimetre of root surface area or per root section. However, more time was required to initiate suckers on root sections grown under the 12:8°C temperature regime compared with those grown at 20:8°C. Furthermore, when calculated from a base temperature of 5°C, the number of degree-days needed to initiate aspen suckers was not different across the temperature regimes. In the second study, CaSO4, NH4NO3, or distilled water was added to aspen root sections. While nutrients did not affect the number of suckers produced, the addition of CaSO4 or NH4NO3 significantly increased sucker dry mass. Nutrient addition appeared to stimulate sucker growth and mobilization of stored reserves to support this growth.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".