How phenology influences physiology in deciduous forest spring ephemerals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spring ephemerals of deciduous forest are adapted to take advantage of the high-light period available in early spring. They appear shortly after snow melt and complete their aboveground growth, including fruit production, within 2 months. After they produce new buds, they senesce and enter dormancy. Dormancy is not very deep in spring ephemerals and during summer differentiation occurs in the bud of the apparently resting organ. Low soil temperatures release dormancy, and the shoots and roots then grow slowly over autumn and winter. The goal of this paper is to show how this characteristic phenology influences many aspects of spring ephemerals' physiology, and the influences these different physiological parameters have on each other. Spring ephemerals have high photosynthetic rates that allow them to rapidly accumulate carbohydrates and complete their aboveground growth in a few weeks. To sustain high photosynthetic rates in early spring, the plants must be able to absorb water efficiently at low soil temperatures and to allocate large amounts of nutrients to the shoot to compensate for lower enzymatic activity at low temperatures. Nutrients are mainly absorbed in spring, although the root system is established in autumn. This means that a large amount of both carbohydrates and nutrients is translocated from the perennial organ to the developing shoot starting in autumn through early spring. Spring ephemerals have low nutrient absorption rates, but high resorption efficiency during leaf senescence. Nevertheless, their high nutrient needs restrict them to rich forest soils. The annual growth rate of spring ephemerals is very slow and this is more likely related to the inherent slow growth rate of the perennial organ than to their short leaf life. As soon as carbohydrate reserves are replenished in spring, sink limitation apparently builds up and induces leaf senescence. A better understanding of the factors controlling the growth rate of spring ephemerals is needed before we can predict these plants' response to climatic changes.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".