Strategies for difficult times: physiological and morphological responses to drought stress in seedlings of Central European tree species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Key message Picea abies and Pinus sylvestris seedlings conserve soil water and are more sensitive to drought showing photoinhibition even under moderate stress, while Quercus robur and Fagus sylvatica seedlings have higher soil water uptake, they show photoinhibition only under severe drought. Abstract Drought is an important factor in ecological change and species distribution shifts. We conducted a greenhouse experiment with seedlings of four Central European tree species: Pinus sylvestris (PS), Picea abies (PA), Fagus sylvatica (FS), and Quercus robur (QR) to investigate their response to drought. We monitored maximum quantum yield of photosystem II (F v /F m ) during a 60-day drought treatment and measured above- and below-ground characteristics as morphophysiological responses to drought stress. Due to the fast, juvenile growth of the deciduous species (FS and QR), they had higher soil water uptake and suffered more quickly from severe drought than conifers (PS and PA). The deciduous species maintained a higher F v /F m , until volumetric water content (VWC) was very low (< 5%), oscillating within a narrow safety margin. Both conifers PA and PS conserved soil water; photoinhibition in these species occurred at VWC of 14.5% and 5.5%, respectively. There were no differences in height between drought-stressed and irrigated seedlings, while drought reduced all root characteristics of the deciduous seedlings. Our study revealed trade-offs between different water management strategies, growth rate, and photoinhibition during the juvenile growth stage of our focal species. For climate change adaptation, anisohydric deciduous tree species seem to be more suitable. However, PS, with its water-conserving management and low photoinhibition threshold, holds promise for successful regeneration on drought-prone sites. Since species selection is critical for forest sustainability, our study contributes to the broader discussion of tree species' drought resistance during the vulnerable juvenile phase in the face of climate change.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".