Effects of plant morphology on root–soil hydraulic interactions of <i>Schefflera heptaphylla</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Root water uptake induces additional soil suction by soil water extraction. However, induced soil suction restricts root water uptake when beyond a threshold (st) and tends to stop water uptake at a limiting suction (sl). This process is called root–soil hydraulic interactions, whose relationship with plant morphology (e.g., plant height, leaf area, and root length) is unclear. This study aims to investigate the effects of plant morphology on response of the sink term (water uptake intensity; WUI) to soil suction for Schefflera heptaphylla. Laboratory tests were conducted on 26 individuals in five different height groups. A new empirical model was derived to consider effects of plant morphology on root water uptake distribution in the full soil suction range. The locations of maximum root length density (RLD) and WUI for taller individuals were relatively deeper and farther from centreline. Before soil suction reached st, water uptake length ability (WULA) remained at a maximum level, positively related to LR ratio (ratio between leaf area, LA, and root length, RL), but less affected by plant height. For taller plants, the decreasing rate of st with LR ratio was larger, while the decreasing rate of WULA with soil suction beyond st appeared smaller. sl appeared independent of height, LA, and RL.
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".