MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2313510291 · doi:10.1139/x2012-144

Fine and coarse root parameters from mature black spruce displaying genetic × soil moisture interaction in growth

2012· article· en· W2313510291 on OpenAlexaffvenue
John E. Major, Kurt H. Johnsen, Debby C. Barsi, Moira Campbell

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest Service
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlack spruceDry weightBiomass (ecology)Water contentAgronomySoil horizonEnvironmental scienceMoisture stressSoil waterMoistureChemistryBiologySoil scienceTaigaEcologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fine and coarse root biomass, C, and N mass parameters were assessed by root size and soil depths from soil cores in plots of 32-year-old black spruce ( Picea mariana (Mill.) Britton, Sterns & Poggenb.) from four full-sib families studied previously for drought tolerance and differential productivity on a dry and wet site. All fine and coarse root size categories had greater root biomass on the dry than on the wet site. Most of the site differences resided in 0–20 cm soil depth. The wet site had greater root N concentration than the dry site, despite the same soil N; thus, virtually no differences were observed in total fine and coarse root N mass between sites. Root N concentration declined with increases in both soil depth and root size. Fine roots (<2 mm) accounted for 73% and 38% of the total fine and coarse N and C mass, respectively. The dry site had lower needle mass and more fine root mass than the wet site, demonstrating an adaptation to moisture stress change through the rebalancing of resource-obtaining organs. Drought-tolerant families had the same quantity of fine roots as drought-intolerant families but were able to support more foliage and aboveground mass per unit fine root mass than intolerant families.

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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations10
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest Research→Same topicPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics→French-language works237,207→