Leaf water relations of competitive <i>Fagus sylvatica</i> and <i>Quercus petraea</i> trees during 4 years differing in soil drought
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Leaf water relations of competitive mature Fagus and Quercus trees were compared during four seasons with low, moderate, or high soil drought intensities in humid northwestern Germany. Leaf conductances (g l ) typically were higher by about 30% in Quercus than in Fagus sun leaves. Predawn leaf water potentials (Ψ pd ) and osmotic potentials (Π o , Π p ) were remarkably similar for the two species. Fagus had significantly lower leaf tissue elasticities (ε max ) than Quercus in dry but not in wet summers. Interannual variabilities in water status parameters were large for g l and seasonal bulk leaf turgor (P) minima; moderate for ε max and daily water potential (Ψ) minima; and small for Π o , Π p , and the relative leaf water content at zero turgor. Fagus regulated water loss conservatively with only limited reductions in P and Ψ in wet or moderately dry seasons but large decreases in Ψ pd ,g l , photosynthesis, and growth during occasional severe droughts. Quercus displayed patterns of a stress-tolerating species (lower ε max , a less drought-sensitive stomatal regulation, and apparently significant drought-induced osmotic adjustment). In temperate humid environments, tree water relations should be studied for at least three or four seasons to account for large interannual variabilities in water status parameters.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 teacher head, 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".