Contribution of adventitious vs initial roots to growth and physiology of black spruce seedlings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Black spruce (Picea mariana [Mill.] BSP) is a boreal tree species characterized by the formation of an adventitious root system. Unlike initial roots from seed germination, adventitious roots gradually appear above the root collar, until they constitute most of mature black spruce root system. Little is known about the physiological role they play and their influence on tree growth relative to initial roots. We hypothesized that adventitious roots present an advantage over initial roots in acquiring water and nutrients. To test this hypothesis, the absorptive capacities of the two root systems were explored in a controlled environment during one growing season. Black spruce seedlings were placed in a double-pot system allowing irrigation (25 and 100% water container capacity) and fertilization (with or without fertilizer) inputs independent to initial and adventitious roots. After 14 weeks, growth parameters (height, diameter, biomass), physiology (net photosynthetic rate, stomatal conductance, shoot water potential) and nutrient content (N, P, K, Ca and Mg foliar content) were compared. Most measured parameters showed no difference for the same treatment on adventitious or initial roots, except for root biomass. Indeed, fertilized black spruce seedlings invested heavily in adventitious root production, twice as much as initial roots. This was also the case when adventitious roots alone were irrigated, while seedlings with adventitious roots subjected to low irrigation produced initial root biomass equivalent to that of adventitious roots. We conclude that black spruce seedlings perform equally well through adventitious and initial roots, but if resources are abundant, they strongly promote development of adventitious roots.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".