Root physiological responses can explain the effects of short-term plant–plant interactions on growth of two subalpine coniferous species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The functional traits of roots play an important role in nutrient acquisition in plants, which affects the outcome of plant–plant interactions. However, few studies have comprehensively investigated the plastic responses of plant root traits to plant–plant interactions. A pot experiment was conducted to quantify the effects of intraspecific and interspecific interactions on seedling growth and on multiple root traits of two coniferous species, Picea asperata Mast. and Abies faxoniana Rehd. et Wils. The results showed that plant–plant interactions changed the root physiology of these two species but had no effect on the morphological, architectural, and biotic traits of their root system. Intraspecific interaction resulted in lower root nitrogen content and stronger resource competition than interspecific interaction. Under intraspecific interaction, P. asperata had lower root vigor and nitrate reductase activity, which impeded the acquisition and utilization of the limited resources, and thus resulted in marginally decreased total biomass, where the total biomass for A. faxoniana was not significantly affected. Under interspecific interaction, the high total biomass of A. faxoniana could be explained by rhizosphere interactive effects and reduced metabolic (carbon and nitrogen) costs due to lower root exudative outputs. Our results demonstrate that root physiological responses can explain the effects of short-term plant–plant interactions on plant growth.
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".