MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Nitrogen storage and seasonal nitrogen cycling in <i>Populus</i>: bridging molecular physiology and ecophysiology

2005· review· en· W2125751420 on OpenAlexafffund
Janice E. K. Cooke, Martin Weih

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Phytologist · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant nutrient uptake and metabolism
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalUniversity of Alberta
FundersEnergimyndighetenGenome Canada
KeywordsCyclingPerennial plantBiologyPhenologyNitrogen cycleDormancyBiogeochemistryEcophysiologyEcologyPlant physiologyBiogeochemical cycleBotanyNitrogenPhotosynthesisChemistryGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While both annual and perennial plants store nitrogen resources during the growing season, seasonal N cycling is a hallmark of the perennial habit. In Populus the vegetative storage proteins BSP, WIN4 and PNI288 all play a role in N storage during active growth, whereas BSP is the major form of reduced N storage during winter dormancy. In this review we explore cellular and molecular events implicated in seasonal N cycling in Populus, as well as environmental cues that modulate both the phenology of seasonal N cycling, and the efficiency and proficiency of autumn N resorption. We highlight recent advances that have been made using Populus genomics resources to address processes germane to seasonal N cycling. Genetic and genetological studies are enabling us to connect our understanding of seasonal N cycling at molecular and cellular levels with that at ecophysiological levels. With the genomics resources and foundational knowledge that are now in place, Populus researchers are poised to build an integrative understanding of seasonal N cycling that spans from genomes to ecosystems.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations210
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew PhytologistSame topicPlant nutrient uptake and metabolismFrench-language works237,207