Splitting the Difference: Heterogeneous Soil Moisture Availability Affects Aboveground and Belowground Reserve and Mass Allocation in Trembling Aspen
Bibliographic record
Abstract
) saplings were used in a split-pot experiment. Following the division of the root systems, saplings were established for a full year and then subjected to either heterogeneous (portion of the root system exposed to non-lethal drought) or homogeneous (whole root system exposed to non-lethal drought or well-watered) treatments. Above- and belowground growth and non-structural carbohydrate (NSC) reserves (soluble sugars and starch) were measured to determine how allocation of reserves and mass between and within organs changed in response to variation in soil moisture availability. In contrast to saplings in the homogeneous drought treatment, which experienced reduced shoot growth, leaf abscission and fine root loss, saplings exposed to the heterogeneous conditions maintained similar aboveground growth and increased root system allocation compared to well-watered saplings. Interestingly under heterogeneous soil moisture conditions, the portion of the root system that was resource limited had no root dieback and increased carbon reserve concentrations, while the portion of the root system that was not resource limited added new roots (30% increase). Overall, saplings subjected to the heterogeneous soil moisture regime over-compensated belowground, both in mass and NSC reserves. These results indicate that the differential allocation of mass or reserves between above- and belowground organs, but also within the root system can occur. While the mechanisms and processes involved in these patterns are not clear, these responses could be interpreted as adaptations and acclimations to preserve the integrity of the entire sapling and suggests that different portions of plant organs might respond autonomously to local conditions. This study provides further appreciation of the complexity of the mechanisms by which plants manage heterogeneous conditions and offers evidence that spatial and temporal variability of resource availability, particularly belowground, needs to be accounted for when extrapolating and modeling stress responses at larger temporal and spatial scales.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".