MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3096093006 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2020-0137

Early rooting and flooding tolerance in cuttings from a <i>Populus deltoides</i> full-sib family under greenhouse conditions

2020· article· en· W3096093006 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
María Emilia Rodríguez, Irina Mozo, Silvia Cora Cortizo, Eduardo P. Cappa, Virginia Luquez

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant responses to water stress
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAgencia Nacional de Promoción Científica y TecnológicaConsejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
KeywordsCuttingBiologyFlooding (psychology)HeritabilityGreenhouseShootHorticultureSalicaceaeSpecific leaf areaBiomass (ecology)BotanyAgronomyWoody plantPhotosynthesis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides Bartr. ex Marsh.) is an important forest tree, with elite genotypes propagated mainly as unrooted dormant cuttings. Several areas where P. deltoides is planted periodically experience flooding episodes. The aims of this work were to analyze the early rooting capability and flooding tolerance of a P. deltoides full-sib family, and to identify growth, wood, and leaf traits that correlate with flooding tolerance. We analyzed the early rooting capability of the parental genotypes and 30 clones from the F1 generation under greenhouse conditions. The rooting percentage of the cuttings ranged from 50% to 100%. There was a positive genetic correlation between shoot weight and root traits (number, biomass, and total length). In a separate experiment, 2-month-old plants growing in pots from the same genotypes were subjected to two treatments: watering (control) and flooding for 35 days. Most genotypes showed an intermediate flooding tolerance with respect to the parental clones. Height, diameter, growth rate, biomass, plant leaf area, leaf number, and leaf increase rate had a positive phenotypic correlation with flooding tolerance, while wood density did not. Height and diameter are traits recommended for selection because they correlate with flooding tolerance, are easy to measure, and have moderate to high narrow sense heritability.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.206 · 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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicPlant responses to water stressFrench-language works237,207