Drought tolerance to overwatering, periodic underwatering and complete withholding of water in interior Douglas-fir seedlings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Seedlings of 95 greenhouse-grown interior Douglas-fir half-sibling families originating from four breeding zones were subject to overwatering and periodic underwatering and compared to an optimally watered control (15 per family = 1425 seedlings total). Averaged over all trees, annual height was reduced by 4% and 11% compared to controls for overwatering and periodic underwatering, respectively. Family overwatered seedling height was 135–75%, and underwatered height was 100–75% of their respective control heights. Shorter families under stress grew like their control compared to taller families, but this was reversed in taller families when the watering conditions were ideal. A survival analysis indicated that after 30–50 days without water, family survival varied from 25% to 90%, and most trees died after 60 days. The breeding zone had little effect on the tolerance to suboptimal water or survival during complete water withdrawal and did not interact with watering treatments. Family traits for tolerance to overwatering favoured root biomass, traits for underwatering favoured reduced stem biomass, especially in ratio to roots, and traits for survival favoured belowground biomass over aboveground biomass. No tradeoffs between tolerance to over- and underwatering were found. Some families did well in all three conditions and some in one or the other. The study results suggest that variation in family growth and survival to suboptimal watering partly relate to root and stem biomass partitioning in the interior Douglas-fir population of British Columbia.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".