Fertilization Regulates Accumulation and Allocation of Biomass and Nutrients in Phoebe bournei Seedlings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To study the effect of N-P-K fertilization on Phoebe bournei seedlings’ organs dry biomass, and nutrients accumulation and allocation, and to further uncover how nutrients regulating dry biomass formation through fertilization, we utilized the “3414” experiment design. The results showed that N, P, and K fertilizer promoted dry biomass accumulation, and root, stem, and total plant N, P, and K content and accumulation in seedlings. The dry biomass accumulations of root, stem, and total plant increased first and then decreased with the increase of N, P, and K application rates, which was basically consistent with the change in dry biomass allocations and N, P, and K contents, accumulations, and allocations. Root N accumulation, root P accumulation, and total plant K accumulation were the key indicators for seedlings growth. N fertilizer had the greatest effect on total dry biomass and root N accumulation, was the most important fertilizer for the growth of Phoebe bournei seedlings, can regulate the growth of root and leaves, is beneficial to root growth at medium-low N fertilizer levels (N: 0.266–0.532 g·plant−1), and leaves growth at high N fertilizer level (N: 0.798 g·plant−1). P fertilizer rate can regulate the seedling stem growth, reaching the maximum at the medium level P application (P2O5: 0.1332 g·plant−1). K fertilizer had the greatest effect on the root P accumulation and total K accumulation, promoting K transport from leaves to root, improved root and stem growth, and inhibited leaves growth. The N, P, and K fertilizer three-factor application can better promote nutrient uptake than double-factor and single-factor fertilization, with highest dry biomass accumulation at the medium level of N, P, K fertilizer (N: 0.532 g·plant−1; P2O5: 0.1232 g·plant−1; K2O: 0.356 g·plant−1). In conclusion, N, P, and K fertilization promoted the N, P, and K absorption, increased root, stem, and leaves N, P, and K content and accumulation, and promoted the seedling dry biomass accumulation, but reversed under excessive application of N, P, and K fertilizer; and N fertilizer was beneficial to root and leaves growth, P fertilizer to stem growth, and K fertilizer to material transfer, which provided a theoretical basis for robust Phoebe bournei seedling cultivation.
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".