MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3189952882 · doi:10.1007/s00468-021-02173-0

Chlorophyll pigment and needle macronutrient responses and interactions to soil moisture and atmospheric CO2 treatments of eight pine and spruce species

2021· article· en· W3189952882 on OpenAlexafffund
John E. Major, Ale× Mosseler

Bibliographic record

VenueTrees · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant responses to elevated CO2
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest Service
FundersCanadian Forest ServiceU.S. Forest ServiceU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsChlorophyllChlorophyll aChlorophyll bPicea abiesBotanyBiologyHorticulturePigmentChlorophyll fluorescenceMoistureAnimal scienceChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Key message Large differences were detected between genera and among species in chlorophyll pigment and macronutrient concentrations. Pines have greater variances than spruces and showed less downregulation of chlorophyll pigment concentrations than spruces in response to eCO2 and DRT. There was strong genetic control of chlorophyll pigments and most macronutrients. Abstract Chlorophyll pigment and needle macronutrient concentrations were quantified for eight tree species in two commercially important genera, Pinus and Picea grown in a 2 × 2 factorial of atmospheric CO2 (370 and 740 ppm) and soil moisture stress (− 0.1 to − 0.5 and − 0.7 to − 1.0 MPa) treatments. Four of the pines and three of the spruces are native to eastern North America, while a fourth spruce, Norway spruce (NS: Picea abies), is from Europe but has been widely used for reforestation in northeastern North America. Overall, spruces had significantly greater chlorophyll a, b, (CHLa, CHLb), and total chlorophyll concentration (TCC) and carotenoid concentration (CAR) than pines. Ambient CO2 (aCO2) had significantly greater TCC than in response to elevated CO2 (eCO2), and TCC and CAR was significantly downregulated more in spruces than in pines in response to eCO2. Pines had equal or greater TCC and CAR in response to drought treatment (DRT) than well-watered treatment, whereas spruces had significantly lower values in response to DRT. Needle N, P and Ca concentrations were greater for spruces than pines. Needle N concentrations declined in response to both eCO2 and DRT. Needle P increased in response to eCO2 but declined in response to DRT. Using total biomass as a covariate, needle N showed no response in pines; whereas spruces showed a slight positive response to increasing total biomass. Covariate analysis showed that TCC had a significant positive relationship to needle N and Mg, with greater TCC in spruces than in pines for a given needle N. Photosynthetic quantum efficiency (QE), derived from light response curves, had a significant positive relationship to TCC that was greater in pines than in spruces for a given TCC. Photosynthetic light convexity had a significant positive relationship to TCC that was also greater in pines than in spruces for a given TCC, indicating a sharper curvature compared to a more progressive curve for spruce. Pine species have greater variances than spruce species. While Pinus strobus (white pine, subgenus Strobus) stands out as having greater chlorophyll and nutrient concentrations than the other three pines (subgenus Pinus). Overall, pines showed less downregulation of chlorophyll pigment concentrations than spruces in response to eCO2 and DRT. There was strong genetic control for chlorophyll pigments and most macronutrients.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTreesSame topicPlant responses to elevated CO2French-language works237,207