Growth response of hybrid aspen (<i>Populus</i> × <i>wettsteinii</i>) and <i>Populus trichocarpa</i> to different pH levels and nutrient availabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Populus plantations are mainly established on agricultural land, but natural forests soils typically have lower pHs and nutrient contents. In this study, growth responses of two commonly used Populus genotypes, hybrid aspen (Populus × wettsteinii Hämet-Ahti) and black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa Torr. & A. Gray ex Hook.), were monitored in the greenhouse in relation of changes in pH and fertilizer levels in quartz sand and forest moraine soil. In quartz sand, changes in pH had no impact on growth or mortality of the two species. In forest soils, the lowest pH values, i.e., 3.5 and 4.0, caused plant mortality for P. trichocarpa but not for P. × wettsteinii. Growth optimum of P. trichocarpa occurred at a pH range of 5.5–6.5, whereas P. × wettsteinii showed a broader growth optimum at a pH range of 4.0–7.0. Fertilization expanded the pH range of optimum growth for P. trichocarpa but not for P. × wettsteinii. In both species, foliar content of nitrogen and potassium content increased after fertilization, whereas the foliar content of phosphorus was similar to unfertilized plants. Our results suggest that differences in tolerance to low pH values between P. × wettsteinii and P. trichocarpa might be connected to tolerance against aluminum. These findings may improve future establishment methods and identification of poplar genotypes suitable for forest land.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".