Analysis of interspecific variation in plant growth responses to nitrogen
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plant species differ greatly in their growth responses to nutrients, but little is known about the physiological and morphological factors that are responsible for this variation. To address this question, I measured the responses to added nitrogen of relative growth rate and three of its components (specific leaf area, unit leaf rate, and leaf weight ratio) for 17 C 3 grass species. Plants were grown in sand culture in a greenhouse and were fertilized daily with either 5 or 0.05 mM NH 4 NO 3 . For most species, growth response to nitrogen was primarily associated with an increased mass allocation to leaves at high versus low nitrogen. Across all species, the average response at high versus low nitrogen was a 37% increase in leaf weight ratio, a 12% increase in unit leaf rate, and a 4% decrease in specific leaf area. Interspecific differences in growth response to nitrogen, however, were associated primarily with species differences in the response of unit leaf area to nitrogen supply. I determined the nitrogen response ratio of each parameter as the value of the parameter at high nitrogen divided by the value at low nitrogen. The rank-order correlation between the unit leaf area response ratio and the relative growth rate response ratio was 0.88. Reanalysis of previous experiments on plant nutrient response showed a similar pattern. In all studies, interspecific variation in the response of relative growth rate to nutrients was associated primarily with interspecific differences in the plastic response of unit leaf area.Key words: leaf weight ratio, net assimilation rate, plant growth analysis, relative growth rate, specific leaf area, unit leaf rate.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".