MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411722926 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2025-0031

The combined effects of low light and low water on seedling growth vary in their severity based upon tree species and seedling traits

2025· article· en· W4411722926 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Samuel Schaffer-Morrison, An Na, Nicholas McNutt, Inés Ibáñez, María Natalia Umaña

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLight effects on plants
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Michigan
KeywordsSeedlingBiologyTree (set theory)BotanyAgronomyEcologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Environmental stresses rarely occur in isolation; in fact, plants often combat multiple stresses at once. Moreover, while most studies examining the combined effect of different factors have focused on greenhouse experiments, comparing experimental results with field studies is necessary to validate results. Here, we examine the effect of low water and light on the growth of Acer rubrum, Acer saccharum, and Quercus rubra in a greenhouse and the field. We tested whether the combined effects were additive, synergistic, or antagonistic and studied whether these responses were mediated by functional traits. In the greenhouse we found an additive effect of the two stresses across species; however, individual species responded differently with A. rubrum showing additive and A. saccharum and Q. rubra showing antagonistic effects. Species were unique in their trait responses, but species with antagonistic effects tended towards more acquisitive strategies belowground. Our field results partially matched our greenhouse findings, with water and light stress resulting in additive effects in all species except for A. saccharum. Our results suggest that A. saccharum and Q. rubra may be better equipped to cope with low light and water, and that studies should be careful to extrapolate from greenhouse studies on multiple stress response alone.

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)0.002
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 score0.334
Threshold uncertainty score0.890

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicLight effects on plantsFrench-language works237,207