MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3202945375 · doi:10.3390/f12101325

Elevation Alone Alters Leaf N and Leaf C to N Ratio of Picea crassifolia Kom. in China’s Qilian Mountains

2021· article· en· W3202945375 on OpenAlexaff
Yalin Niu, Jianfang Kang, Haohai Su, Jan Adamowski, Asim Biswas, Chunfang Liu, Jianjun Cao

Bibliographic record

VenueForests · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEcological stoichiometryPhosphorusMontane ecologyAnimal sciencePrecipitationStoichiometryHorticultureEcosystemNutrientNitrogenBiologyBotanyChemistryEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Leaf stoichiometry of plants can respond to variation in environments such as elevation ranging from low to high and success in establishing itself in a given montane ecosystem. An evaluation of the leaf stoichiometry of Qinghai Spruce (Picea crassifolia Kom.) growing at different elevations (2400 m, 2600 m, 2800 m, 3000 m, and 3200 m) in eastern China’s Qilian Mountains, showed that leaf carbon (LC) and leaf phosphorus (LP) were similar among elevations, with ranges of 502.76–518.02 g·kg−1, and 1.00–1.43 g·kg−1, respectively. Leaf nitrogen (LN) varied with changes of elevation, with a maxima of 12.82 g·kg−1 at 2600 m and a minima of 10.74 g·kg−1 at 2800 m. The LC:LN under 2400 m and 2600 m was lower than that under other elevations, while LC:LP and LN:LP were not different among these elevations. Except for LN and LC:LN, P. crassifolia’s other leaf stoichiometries remained relatively stable across elevations, partly supporting the homeostasis hypothesis. Variations in leaf stoichiometry across elevations were mainly linked to mean annual precipitation, mean annual temperature, soil pH, and the soil organic C to soil total N ratio. P. crassifolia growth within the study area was more susceptible to P limitation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations8
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueForestsSame topicPlant Water Relations and Carbon DynamicsFrench-language works237,207