Distribution and anatomical characteristics of white rings in Populus tremuloides
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ʻWhite ringsʼ have been reported to occur within trembling aspen (Popu- lus tremuloides Michx.) during years of intense early defoliation by the forest tent caterpillar (Malacosoma disstria Hbn.). This study was under- taken to 1) assess the distribution of white rings within trembling aspen stems and 2) to quantify the anatomical differences between white rings and the ʻnormalʼ rings formed in the previous year. Both stem analysis and image analysis were used. Several cross sections from six trees were dated and the presence of white rings on each disc was recorded. The development of white rings from the base up to about 70% of stem height was found to be uniform. Results from the comparison of eleven white and normal rings indicated that white rings were narrower and less dense than normal rings. The anatomical variable with the most discriminating power was average fiber wall thickness. White rings have smaller fiber diameter with little secondary cell wall thickening resulting in a higher proportion of fiber lumen. Possible mechanisms involved in the formation of white rings are discussed. It is speculated that defoliation affects the growth hormone complex inducing earlier cessation of xylem growth and reallocation of reserves to the production of new foliage. The occurrence of white rings in many diffuse-porous species stresses the potential for identification of periods of intense defoliation episodes. Increased interest in the dendroecology of diffuse-porous species may confirm their wide- spread occurrence.
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 | 0.001 | 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".