A comparison of growth and physiology in <i>Picea glauca</i> and <i>Populus tremuloides</i> at different soil temperatures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.) and white spruce (Picea glauca (Moench) Voss) seedlings were grown at uniform air temperatures but different soil temperatures (5, 15, and 25°C), and gas-exchange and growth characteristics were examined during active growth and early dormancy. At 5°C, Populus tremuloides had no root growth and limited growth in leaf area and shoot mass compared with the large increases in leaf and shoot mass at 25°C. In contrast, Picea glauca had some root growth at 5°C and moderate growth of roots at 15 and 25°C; however, there were no differences in aboveground mass at the different soil temperatures. Net assimilation and stomatal conductance in Populus tremuloides were reduced with decreasing soil temperatures, while in Picea glauca soil temperatures did not affect these gas-exchange variables. In both species, root mass was higher in the dormant period than during the growing period, while root volume remained constant. Generally, the growth variables of Populus tremuloides were more suppressed by cold soils than in Picea glauca. Root total nonstructural carbohydrates (TNC) decreased between the active growth and dormancy period by nearly 50% in Populus tremuloides, while there was no change in TNC in Picea glauca. Results suggest a more conservative use of TNC reserves in Picea glauca combined with a tolerance to cold soil temperatures compared with Populus tremuloides.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".