167 Nutrient Uptake and Growth Performance of OH87 and OH97 Pear Rootstocks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One-year-old (Old Home) OH87 and OH97 pear rootstocks were grown in 2-gallon containers under natural conditions at Corvallis, Ore., in in 1999. Uniform plants were harvested during August and September, and total leaf area, new shoot number and length, and root growth were measured. The kinetics of NH 4 + and NO 3 - uptake by new roots of both rootstocks were determined with the ion-depletion technique. OH87 had larger total leaf area, and more and longer shoots than OH97. Total root biomass was similiar between the two rootstocks, but OH87 had a larger proportion of new roots and more extension roots than OH97. Both rootstocks had lower Km values for NH 4 + absorption than for NO 3 - and therefore both had greater absorptive power for NH 4 + than for NO 3 - at the low nutrient concentrations. The maximum uptake rates (V max ) of OH97 were similiar for both NH 4 + and NO 3 - absorption, but OH87 had a much higher maximum uptake rate for NO 3 - than for NH 4 + .
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".