Linking hydraulic conductivity and photosynthesis to water-source partitioning in trees versus seedlings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relationships between hydraulic and photosynthetic properties in plants have been widely studied, but much less is known about how these properties are linked to water-source partitioning, the spatial and temporal separation of water sources in ecosystems. Plant water-source partitioning is often influenced by the proximity of groundwater from the natural surface. We studied the water acquisition strategy and hydraulic and photosynthetic properties of Tuart (Eucalyptus gomphocephala D.C.), a large coastal tree species that occupies seasonally dry habitats underlain by superficial aquifers. Our goal was to quantify water-source partitioning as the proportion of xylem water derived from the vadose and saturated zones with respect to stage of development and proximity of groundwater. We then sought to associate the proportional contribution of a given water source with xylem hydraulic and photosynthetic properties, thus conferring a linkage. Seedlings were more inclined to use surface soil water when rainfall recharge of the upper profile occurred, suggesting that they maintained or rapidly developed a proportionally high amount of functional roots in the upper, seasonally dry, soil profile. This strategy was associated with a lower xylem-area-specific hydraulic conductivity (K(S)), leaf-area-specific hydraulic conductivity (K(L)) and maximum photon yield of photosystem II (F(V)/F(M)). In contrast, trees acquired water from a variety of sources in different seasons and had a higher K(S), K(L) and F(V)/F(M). Despite the higher K(S) and K(L) in trees, the midday hydrodynamic water potential gradient from soil to leaves, ΔΨ, was similar. We conclude that there was a linkage between hydraulic and photosynthetic properties with the partitioning of water sources and that this adaptation to long-term hydrological regimes accommodated the different hydraulic characteristics and hydrological environments of trees versus seedlings.
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".