Tracing changes in uptake of precipitation and groundwater and associated consequences for physiology of Douglas-fir and lodgepole pine trees in montane forests of SW Alberta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) in southwestern Alberta were studied to determine the water sources used and the effect of changing soil moisture on tree ecophysiological function. The hydrogen stable isotope ratios of water from local groundwater and precipitation were compared to tree stem water to determine the amount of stem water coming from those two sources. There were no significant differences between species in the portion of summer precipitation taken up. However, Douglas-fir shifted towards using more groundwater as shallow soil moisture declined. In addition, Douglas-fir showed large changes in shoot water potential, but maintained relatively constant rates of oxygen evolution, whereas lodgepole pine exhibited smaller changes in shoot water potential and had severely reduced rates of oxygen evolution during mid-summer drought. Lower leaf-area to sap-wood area and higher leaf δ13C (carbon isotope composition) suggested a less efficient hydraulic system in Douglas-fir compared to lodgepole pine.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".