MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2331080030 · doi:10.1093/treephys/27.6.901

Ammonium and nitrate uptake, nitrogen productivity and biomass allocation in interior spruce families with contrasting growth rates and mineral nutrient preconditioning

2007· article· en· W2331080030 on OpenAlexaff
B. D. Miller, B. J. Hawkins

Bibliographic record

VenueTree Physiology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant nutrient uptake and metabolism
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmmoniumNitrogenBiomass (ecology)NutrientNitrateProductivityShootRelative growth rateAgronomySeedlingBotanyGrowth rateChemistryBiologyEcologyMathematicsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Four full-sib families of interior spruce (Picea glauca (Moench) Voss) x Picea engelmanii Parry ex Engelm.) with contrasting growth rates (two fast-growing and two slow-growing families) were grown aeroponically with either a 2% relative nitrogen addition rate or free access to nitrogen. Fast-growing families showed greater plasticity in allocating biomass to shoots at high nitrogen supply and to roots at low nitrogen supply than slow-growing families. Compared with the slow-growing families, short-term net ammonium uptake rate measured with an ion selective electrode was significantly greater in fast-growing families at high ammonium supply, but not at low supply. Net nitrate uptake showed the same trend, but differences among families were not significant. Results indicate that differences in seedling growth rate are partly a result of physiological differences in net nitrogen uptake efficiency and nitrogen productivity.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations46
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTree PhysiologySame topicPlant nutrient uptake and metabolismFrench-language works237,207