MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156804078 · doi:10.1139/x08-009

Transient physiological responses of planting frozen root plugs of Douglas-fir seedlings

2008· article· en· W2156804078 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
M. Anisul Islam, Douglass F. Jacobs, Kent G. Apostol, R. Kasten Dumroese

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSeedling growth and survival studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHardwood Tree Improvement and Regeneration Center, Purdue UniversityU.S. Forest Service
KeywordsTranspirationChlorophyll fluorescenceHorticultureStomatal conductanceShootSowingSeedlingPhotosynthesisBotanyRoot systemDry weightDouglas firBiologyChemistryAnimal science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Short-term physiological responses of planting frozen (FR) and rapidly thawed (TR) root plugs of Douglas-fir ( Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco) seedlings were examined through time series (0 h, 6 h, 12 h, 1 day, 3 days, and 7 days) measurements in two separate experiments: 10 °C day : 6 °C night, RH 75% and 30 °C day : 20 °C night, RH 50%, respectively. Net photosynthesis, transpiration, shoot water potential, and root hydraulic conductance were lower in FR compared with TR seedlings under both growing conditions. Magnitude of difference in root hydraulic conductance was higher under warm-dry conditions. Chlorophyll fluorescence (Fv/Fm) values were higher for TR than FR seedlings at 0 h, but similar thereafter for both growing conditions. Needle electrolyte leakage and chlorophyll content did not differ between FR and TR seedlings under both environmental regimes. Higher root O2uptake was observed in FR seedlings in warm-dry conditions and in TR seedlings under cool-moist conditions. TR seedlings planted under warm-dry conditions had more flushed buds and new roots than FR seedlings, while no buds flushed for both FR and TR seedlings under cool-moist conditions. Comparatively higher photosynthesic rates in TR seedlings planted under warm-dry conditions likely contributed toward more new roots, which could be advantageous for survival and early growth.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations4
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicSeedling growth and survival studiesFrench-language works237,207