Cross-validation of the high-capacity tensiometer and thermocouple psychrometer for continuous monitoring of xylem water potential in saplings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The pressure chamber, the most popular method used to measure xylem water potential, is a discontinuous and destructive technique and is therefore not suitable for automated monitoring. Continuous non-destructive monitoring could until very recently be achieved only by use of the thermocouple psychrometer (TP). Here we present the high-capacity tensiometer (HCT) as an alternative method for continuous non-destructive monitoring. This provided us with a unique chance to cross-validate the two instruments by installing them simultaneously on the same sapling stem. The HCT and the TP showed excellent agreement for xylem water potential less than -0.5 MPa. Response to day/night cycles and watering was remarkably in phase, indicating excellent response time of both instruments despite substantially different working principles. For xylem water potential greater than -0.5 MPa, the discrepancies sometimes observed between the HCT and TP were mainly attributed to the kaolin paste used to establish contact between the xylem and the HCT, which becomes hydraulically poorly conductive in this range of water potential once dried beyond its air-entry value and subsequently re-wetted. Notwithstanding this limitation, which can be overcome by selecting a clay paste with higher air-entry value, the HCT has been shown to represent a valid alternative to the TP.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 teacher head, 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".