Interactions of plant growth responses to spring freezing and summer drought: a multispecies comparison
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PREMISE OF THE STUDY: Freezing and drought both result in cellular dehydration, and similar physiological responses to these stressors may result in cross acclimation, whereby prior freezing exposure increases subsequent drought tolerance. We examined how spring freezing influences summer drought tolerance for a range of herbaceous old field species: 6 graminoids (Agrostis stolonifera, Arrhenatherum elatius, Bromus inermis, Festuca rubra, Lolium perenne, Poa compressa) and 2 forbs (Plantago lanceolata, Securigera varia), with the goal of examining the generality of cross acclimation responses. METHODS: We exposed the plants to -5°C in the spring and to a 3-week summer drought, and harvested the plants after a 3-week watering/recovery period. We also measured leaf soluble proteins and sugars to explore the potential mechanisms before and during drought stress. KEY RESULTS: For Agrostis stolonifera, Bromus inermis, Lolium perenne, Plantago lanceolata, and Poa compressa there was evidence of cross acclimation based on aboveground or belowground biomass, with a reduction in the severity of the drought effect for the plants previously exposed to freezing. Freezing and drought effects were additive for Arrhenatherum elatius, and for the remaining two species the test of the freezing-drought interaction was inconclusive, because significant drought and freezing effects did not co-occur. When present, freezing-drought interactions were not correlated with changes in leaf soluble protein or sugars. CONCLUSIONS: Our results reveal that the phenomenon of freezing-drought cross acclimation appears to be common in herbaceous species, and variation among species in cross acclimation indicates that multiple stresses could alter relative species abundances in plant communities.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".