Morphology and longevity of different-order fine roots in poplar (<i>Populus</i> × <i>euramericana</i>) plantations with contrasting forest productivities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fine roots play important roles in the allocation of forest net primary productivity. Here, to provide insights into the intrinsic and extrinsic factors affecting the root growth, we examined the morphology and longevity of different-order fine roots in two poplar (Populus × euramericana (Dode) Guinier) plantations with contrasting forest productivities. The results indicated that the biomass of fine roots decreased significantly as the root orders increased (P < 0.05). In the plantation with relatively high productivity, the specific root length of the first- and second-order roots was significantly greater than that of the third- to fifth-order roots (P < 0.05). Observations of minirhizotrons showed that roots of the third-order and higher lived longer than the first- and second-order roots. Compared with those in the plantation with relatively low productivity, the cumulative survival rate of the first-order roots was significantly higher in the plantation with relatively high productivity, while that of the third-order or higher roots was lower. The life-span of the first-order roots correlated negatively with soil available inorganic nitrogen, while that of the second-order roots correlated positively with the soil phenolic acid content. A Cox proportional hazards analysis revealed that soil conditions, root orders, season of root birth, and soil depth significantly affected fine-root longevity. These findings suggest that roots of different orders contribute unequally to the poplar plantation 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 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) | 0.000 | 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".