Reduction in Water Stress for Tree Saplings Using Hydrogels in Soil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effect of soil amendment with hydrogel on reducing water stress was tested for Siberian elm (Ulmus pumila) and silver maple (Acer saccharinum) saplings.The trees were planted in soils with one of two concentrations of hydrogel (0.5% or 1% dry weight) as compared to the control soil (0% of hydrogel) and watered either daily, weekly, or bi-weekly.Growth was monitored by measuring height and stem diameter.Stress was monitored by measuring SPAD readings and normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI), as proxy measures of chlorophyll content and photosynthetic activity, respectively.Water stress decreased NDVI (p < 0.05) but did not have a significant effect on SPAD readings.Soil with 0.5% concentration of hydrogel was positively associated with greater height and NDVI (p < 0.01) for both maple and elm trees.Hydrogels had a species-specific effect on SPAD readings.The interaction between hydrogel concentration and the watering regime had a significant effect on the height and NDVI (p < 0.01) of elms, but not maples.The improved performance of water-stressed tree saplings in hydrogel-amended soils was presumably due to the ability of hydrogels to absorb and then gradually release water and nutrients.This is of special interest for urban foresters, because water stress and nutrient deficiency are two important growthlimiting factors for street trees.
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".