Plant Size Plays an Important Role in Plant Responses to Low Water Availability and Defoliation in Two Woody Leguminosae Species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plant size influences plant responses to combined environmental factors under climate change. However, their roles in plant ecophysiological responses are not fully understood. Two rapidly growing Leguminosae species (Robinia pseudoacacia and Amorpha fruticosa) were used to examine plant responses to combined drought and defoliation treatments (two levels of both treatments). Both 1.5 month-old seedlings and 3 month-old seedlings were grown in a greenhouse, and seedling growth, leaf gas exchanges, stem hydraulics, and concentrations of non-structural carbohydrates were determined after 60 days of treatment. Our results indicated defoliation had no significant effect on plant height, basal diameter, and total biomass whatever plant sizes and species. Under the low water availability treatment, the defoliated seedlings significantly increased by 24% in stem water potential compared with non-defoliated seedlings in large R. pseudoacacia. Compared with the high water availability in large non-defoliated R. pseudoacacia seedlings, the low water availability significantly reduced by 26% in stem starch concentration to maintain the stem soluble sugar concentration stable, but not in small R. pseudoacacia seedlings. We also found a negative correlation between leaf and root soluble sugar concentration under low water availability in A. fruticosa. The results demonstrate defoliation could relieve the effect of low water availability in large seedlings. Large seedlings had more compensatory mechanisms in response to defoliation and drought treatments than small seedlings, thus species with large carbon reserves are more recommended for vegetation restoration under combined drought and defoliation conditions. Future studies with more species are crucial for obtaining more rigorous conclusions.
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".