MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1911914479 · doi:10.1111/pce.12216

Frost fatigue and spring recovery of xylem vessels in three diffuse‐porous trees <i>in situ</i>

2013· article· en· W1911914479 on OpenAlexaff
Karen K. Christensen‐Dalsgaard, Melvin T. Tyree

Bibliographic record

VenuePlant Cell & Environment · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTree Root and Stability Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsXylemFrost (temperature)CavitationMaterials scienceSpring (device)Electrical conduitResistance (ecology)HorticultureBiologyComposite materialEcologyStructural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Frost has been shown to cause frost fatigue (reduced cavitation resistance) in branch segments in the lab. Here, we studied the change in cavitation resistance and percent loss of conductivity (PLC) from fall to spring over 2 consecutive years in three diffuse-porous species in situ. We used the cavitron technique to measure P25 , P50 and P90 (the xylem pressure causing a 25, 50 and 90% conductivity loss) and PLC and stained functioning vessels. Cavitation resistance was reduced by 64-87% (in terms of P50 ), depending on the species and year. P25 was impacted the most and P90 the least, changing the vulnerability curves from s- to r-shaped over the winter in all three species. The branches suffered an almost complete loss of conductivity, but frost fatigue did not necessarily occur concurrently with increases in PLC. In two species, there was a trade-off between conduit size and vulnerability. Spring recovery occurred by growth of new vessels, and in two species by partial refilling of embolized conduits. Although newly grown and functioning conduits appeared more vulnerable to cavitation than year-old vessels, cavitation resistance generally improved in spring, suggesting other mechanisms for partial frost fatigue repair.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.162
Teacher spread0.152 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations52
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlant Cell & EnvironmentSame topicTree Root and Stability StudiesFrench-language works237,207