MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403624157 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2024-0140

Effects of silicon application on <i>Betula pendula</i> seedlings

2024· article· en· W4403624157 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Md. Kamrul Hassan, Otso Huitu, Pedro J. Aphalo, Tero Klemola, Tuomo Leppänen, Arja Tervahauta, Tarja Lehto

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSilicon Effects in Agriculture
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAcademy of Finland
KeywordsBetula pendulaHorticultureBotanyBiologyForestryEnvironmental scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Silicon (Si) is a beneficial element for many plant species, conferring resistance to drought and herbivory, but its effects on trees are less known. We studied responses of silver birch ( Betula pendula), grown in peat, to liquid Si supplementation (Si concentration 0.65 mmol/L) on (1) growth, (2) water economy, and (3) element accumulation plus (4) feeding preference of an insect, Epirrita autumnata, and a mammalian herbivore, Microtus agrestis. Plant growth was not affected but control (Si–) plants shed their old leaves earlier. Detached Si+ leaves lost water 11% units less than Si–, and the integrated water-use efficiency based on 13 C analysis was higher in Si+. Foliar Se was higher and Mn and S lower in Si+. Root Mg concentrations were higher and Pb lower in Si+. Epirrita autumnata did not prefer either treatment, but M. agrestis preferred Si– stems. Silicon improved birch water relations as indicated by the leaf drying resistance and increased water-use efficiency. The changes in metal accumulation were probably beneficial, but the lower S/Se ratio requires attention. Furthermore, Si decreased palatability to a mammalian herbivore. Using Si as fertilizer in nurseries could be possible to increase birch tolerance to water stress and herbivory.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.773
Threshold uncertainty score0.982

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicSilicon Effects in AgricultureFrench-language works237,207