Response of<i>Populus tremuloides</i>,<i>Populus balsamifera</i>,<i>Betula papyrifera</i>and<i>Picea glauca</i>Seedlings to Low Soil Temperature and Water-logged Soil Conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Populus balsamifera L., Betula papyrifera Marsh., Populus tremuloides Michx. and Picea glauca (Moench) Voss seedlings were grown in specialized pots that maintained a constant water-table height and allowed monitoring of water use by the tree/pot under high water-table conditions and different soil temperatures. The trees were grown at imperfectly and poorly drained water table conditions and at 5, 10 or 20°C soil temperature. In P. balsamifera, net assimilation and transpiration remained high under wet soil conditions and increased with higher soil temperatures. Populus balsamifera growth and leaf area development were severely restricted at soil temperatures of 5°C. Both B. papyrifera and P. tremuloides had low transpiration and pot level water-use rates at both water-table conditions and these did not significantly increase with increasing soil temperature. Picea glauca was negatively affected by high water tables but showed minimal response to soil temperature changes. The study suggests that P. balsamifera would be a good hydrological nurse crop to lower the water table when soils are warm, while B. papyrifera is likely to be a good nurse species in cool and imperfectly drained sites.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".