MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2128077717 · doi:10.1139/x02-008

Measuring changes in stress and vitality indicators in limed sugar maple on the Allegheny Plateau in north-central Pennsylvania

2002· article· en· W2128077717 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Philip M. Wargo, Rakesh Minocha, Betty L. Wong, Robert P. Long, Stephen B. Horsley, Thomas J. Hall

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Physiology and Cultivation Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLimeSugarVitalityMapleCrown (dentistry)ChemistryBotanyHorticultureStarchSoil pHAgronomyBiologySoil waterEcologyFood science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A study established in 1985 in north-central Pennsylvania to determine effects of lime fertilization on declining sugar maple (Acer saccharum Marsh.) was evaluated in 1993 and showed that liming positively affected growth and crown vitality in sugar maple. This effect of lime on sugar maple offered an opportunity to assess other indicators of tree vitality and their response to lime additions. Foliar polyamines, starch and soluble sugars in root tissues, and cambial electrical resistance (CER) at breast height were evaluated. Foliar putrescine, soluble sugars, and CER decreased, while starch increased in lime-treated trees. Changes in these indicators were correlated with tree growth and crown vitality, which improved in limed plots. However, they were more highly correlated with lime-induced changes in foliar and soil elements and soil pH. Putrescine, soluble sugars, and CER decreased and starch increased, as Ca and Mg and molar ratios of Ca/Al and Mg/Mn increased and as Al and Mn decreased in both soil and foliage, and as soil pH increased. Results showed the beneficial effect of lime on tree vitality that was not reflected in visual assessments of crown vitality and demonstrated the potential utility of these physiological and biochemical measures as indicators of vitality in sugar maple.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.924
Threshold uncertainty score0.947

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.123
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.135 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations80
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicPlant Physiology and Cultivation StudiesFrench-language works237,207