Morphology, Physiology, Survival, and Field Performance of Containerized Coastal Douglas Fir Seedlings Given Different Dormancy-induction Regimes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of different dormancy-induction regimes on first-year containerized coastal Douglas fir [ Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco var. menziesii ] seedling morphology and physiology in the nursery, as well as seedling survival and performance after one growing season in a common garden, were investigated. In early July, three dormancy-induction regimes were applied: moderate moisture stress (MS), short day (SD), and short day with moderate moisture stress (SD+MS). In early October, seedling height, root collar diameter, and shoot dry weight were unaffected by regime, but root dry weight was reduced in seedlings from the MS and SD+MS regimes compared with the SD regime. At this time, morphogenesis was completed in all terminal buds of seedlings from both SD regimes, whereas it continued in all terminal buds of seedlings from the MS regime. Furthermore, 25% to 88% of terminal buds from the SD regimes were endodormant, but none from the MS regime were endodormant. In March, budbreak occurred at the same time in seedlings from the two SD regimes and was earlier than in seedlings from the MS regime; root growth capacity was unaffected by regime. After one growing season, there were no regime differences in seedling survival, root collar diameter, shoot dry weight, root dry weight, length of the current-year leader, or number of needles on the leader.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".