Nitrogen mobilization, nitrogen uptake and growth of cuttings obtained from poplar stock plants grown in different N regimes and sprayed with urea in autumn
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nitrogen mobilization, nitrogen uptake and growth of cuttings obtained from poplar stock plants fertigated with different nitrogen (N) treatments and sprayed with urea in autumn were studied. Stock plants propagated from poplar cuttings were trained to a single shoot and fertigated with 0, 5, 10, 15 or 20 mmol l(-1) N during the first growing season. In October, a subset of stock plants from each N fertigation treatment was sprayed twice with either 3% urea or water, and overwintered outside. In March, total tree biomass and total N concentration and content of stems were estimated for stock plants in each treatment, and cuttings were taken from the middle of each stock plant and stored in plastic bags at 2 degrees C. In mid-April, cuttings were planted in 7.5-l pots containing N-free medium and grown outdoors with a weekly fertigation with nutrient solution containing 0 or 10 mmol l(-1) 15NH4 15NO3. In mid-July, cuttings were harvested, and new shoot (new stems and leaves), shank (old cutting stem) and roots were analyzed for new biomass growth and total N and 15N content. Growth of stock plants was positively related to N supply in the previous growing season. Foliar urea application in autumn had no effect on subsequent stock plant growth even though urea sprays increased both N concentration and content in stem tissues. Biomass growth of cuttings obtained from stock plants was closely related to their N content when the cuttings were grown in an N-free medium regardless of previous treatments applied to the stock plants. When N was supplied in the growth medium, the strength of the relationship between regrowth and N content of cuttings was significantly reduced. Cuttings from stock plants treated with foliar urea and grown in a N-free medium remobilized between 75 and 82% of their total N for new growth, whereas cuttings from plants receiving no urea spray remobilized only between 60 and 69% of their total N for new growth. Current N fertilization of the cuttings reduced the percentage of N remobilized. We conclude that new growth of poplar cuttings in spring was more dependent on currently applied N than on reserve N, and urea N applied as a spray in autumn was more easily remobilized than N taken up by roots during the previous season.
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".