Testing Foliar Absorption in Black Spruce (Picea mariana (Mill.) BSP) Saplings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Foliar absorption is a known water acquisition mechanism in many species and ecosystems. Experiments in the field showed that mature black spruce [Picea mariana (Mill.) BSP] can surprisingly sustain periods of summer drought. A possible explanation for this phenomenon is that this species is able to rehydrate via its needles. In this study, we explored if black spruce saplings are able to absorb water via the needles or to increase their water potential and photosynthesis after needle wetting. Forty saplings were used, of which half were excluded from irrigation until water potential of -2.70 MPa. For the first part of the experiment, the saplings were sprayed at night with a colorant solution and water potential was measured the following day. No colorant was absorbed by the saplings and no difference in water potential was found between irrigated and non-irrigated individuals. The experiment was then repeated, spraying saplings with normal water and measuring water potential and photosynthesis. Once again there was no increase in water potential or photosynthesis following the canopy spraying. The results of this study show no evidence of foliar absorption in black spruce saplings. However this does not exclude the occurrence of foliar absorption via passive or active mechanisms in mature trees, which grow under different circumstances.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".