MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7109531141 · doi:10.26108/v7m4-f775

Genotypic variation in growth of Picea glauca (Moench (Voss)) to elevated carbon dioxide

2007· article· en· W7109531141 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueAcadiaU-DEV · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant responses to elevated CO2
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarbon dioxideBiomass (ecology)TranspirationCarbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphereGenotypeVariation (astronomy)Genetic variation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Atmospheric CO₂ levels are rising, and anticipated to double before the end of this century. Elevated CO₂ affects many aspects of plant function, and these effects vary both inter- and intra-specifically. However, the magnitude of intra-specific variation in woody plants has not been well documented, and the mechanistic basis for this variation is largely unexplored. This study examined intra-specific variation in response to elevated carbon dioxide in twenty-nine genotypes of white spruce (Picea glauca), a widely distributed and economically important conifer species in Canada. Trees were exposed to ambient CQ₂ levels (370ppm) or twice-ambient CO₂ levels (740ppm). Regular measurements of tree height and diameter were taken, in addition to transpiration and biomass measurements at the end of the experiment. All genotypes exhibited an increase in biomass in the elevated CO₂ treatment; however, considerable variation was observed in the degree of response among genotypes. Depending on the genotype, biomass enhancement under the HC treatment ranged from 18.8% to 96.7% with a mean of 51.7%. Genotypes exhibiting a large response to elevated CO₂ tended to allocate more fixed carbon towards growth in height and less towards increase in stem diameter. These genotypes also tended to have the highest growth rates, regardless of the level of CO₂.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.856
Threshold uncertainty score0.612

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcadiaU-DEVSame topicPlant responses to elevated CO2French-language works237,207