Variation in water potential, hydraulic characteristics and water source use in montane Douglas-fir and lodgepole pine trees in southwestern Alberta and consequences for seasonal changes in photosynthetic capacity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tree species response to climate change-induced shifts in the hydrological cycle depends on many physiological traits, particularly variation in water relations characteristics. We evaluated differences in shoot water potential, vulnerability of branches to reductions in hydraulic conductivity, and water source use between Pinus contorta Dougl. ex Loud. var. latifolia Engelm. (lodgepole pine) and Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco (interior Douglas-fir), and determined the consequences for seasonal changes in photosynthetic capacity. The Douglas-fir site had soil with greater depth, finer texture and higher organic matter content than soil at the lodgepole pine site, all factors that increased the storage of soil moisture. While the measured xylem vulnerability curves were quite similar for the two species, Douglas-fir had lower average midday shoot water potentials than did lodgepole pine. This implied that lodgepole pine exhibited stronger stomatal control of transpiration than Douglas-fir, which helped to reduce the magnitude of the water potential gradient required to access water from drying soil. Stable hydrogen isotope measurements indicated that Douglas-fir increased the use of groundwater during mid-summer when precipitation inputs were low, while lodgepole pine did not. There was a greater reduction of photosynthetic carbon gain in lodgepole pine compared with Douglas-fir when the two tree species were exposed to seasonal declines in soil water content. The contrasting patterns of seasonal variation in photosynthetic capacity observed for the two species were a combined result of differences in soil characteristics at the separate sites and the inherent physiological differences between the species.
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".