MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2626824904 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2017-0122

Impacts of irrigation on the deciduous period of teak (<i>Tectona grandis</i>) in a monsoonal climate

2017· article· en· W2626824904 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Katsunori Tanaka, Nobuaki Tanaka, Naoko Matsuo, Chatchai Tantasirin, Masakazu Suzuki

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of Science
KeywordsDeciduousTectonaPhenologyEnvironmental scienceIrrigationVapour Pressure DeficitAnnual growth cycle of grapevinesWater contentTranspirationAbscissionAgronomyBiologyHorticultureBotanyPhotosynthesisShoot

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Leaf phenology in tropical deciduous forests significantly influences water and carbon exchanges between vegetation and the atmosphere. Thus, a comprehensive understanding of the effects of hydrometeorological variables on the growing period is essential for predicting plant water use following climate change. We investigated whether leaf phenology, bud break, and leaf abscission in mature deciduous teak trees (Tectona grandis L. f.) were induced by the root zone soil moisture content. Using heat pulse velocity and photographic imagery, we compared the deciduous periods (DPs) of two teak trees under natural conditions and two underirrigated conditions. DPs ranged from 47 to 84 days under natural conditions, whereas irrigation shortened the DP by approximately 2 weeks and promoted high levels of water use for 10 months. Thus, the annual water use of irrigated trees far exceeded that of control trees. Under irrigated conditions, leaf abscission and reduced water use were accelerated when the daily mean vapor pressure deficit exceeded 14 hPa following a period of gradual senescence. This study presents preliminary results regarding the impact of irrigation on the teak tree DP. However, uncertainty remains due to insufficient replication; thus, further tests are needed. Nonetheless, our results may predict leaf phenology after short dry periods.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest Research→Same topicPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics→French-language works237,207→