MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2255067782 · doi:10.1093/treephys/tpv142

Physiological integration of connected balsam poplar ramets

2016· article· en· W2255067782 on OpenAlexafffund
Kokouvi Emmanuel Adonsou, Annie DesRochers, Francine Tremblay

Bibliographic record

VenueTree Physiology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBioenergy crop production and management
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiologyPhotosynthesisBotanyStomatal conductanceWater stressHorticulture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Clonal integration between ramets can be an ecological advantage of clonal plant species in environments where resources are patchily distributed. We investigated physiological integration among Populus balsamifera L. ramets under drought stress in order to demonstrate water sharing between connected ramets. Pairs of connected ramets were grown in separate pots in the greenhouse where half of ramets had the parental root connection severed and half were left intact. Drought stress was applied to one ramet, and growth, specific leaf area (SLA), net photosynthesis, stomatal conductance, leaf water potential and carbon isotopic composition (δ(13)C) were measured after an 8-week growing period. Droughted ramets connected to watered ramets were able to maintain high gas exchange activity and water potential, similar to watered ramets. Leaf water potential and SLA results showed that the root connection was more beneficial for proximal compared with distal ramets. The parental root connection also allowed droughted ramets to discriminate more against (13)C compared with severed ramets. In conclusion, this study shows compelling evidence of physiological integration of connected P. balsamifera ramets through water sharing.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

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 science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations31
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTree PhysiologySame topicBioenergy crop production and managementFrench-language works237,207