Uniform versus Asymmetric Shading Mediates Crown Recession in Conifers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study we explore the impact of asymmetrical vs. uniform crown shading on the mortality and growth of upper and lower branches within tree crowns, for two conifer species: shade intolerant lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) and shade tolerant white spruce (Picea glauca). We also explore xylem hydraulics, foliar nutrition, and carbohydrate status as drivers for growth and expansion of the lower and upper branches in various types of shading. This study was conducted over a two-year period across 10 regenerating forest sites dominated by lodgepole pine and white spruce, in the lower foothills of Alberta, Canada. Trees were assigned to one of four shading treatments: (1), complete uniform shading of the entire tree, (2) light asymmetric shading where the lower 1/4-1/3 of the tree crown was shaded, (3) heavy asymmetric shading as in (2) except with greater light reduction and (4) control in which no artificial shading occurred and most of the entire crown was exposed to full light. Asymmetrical shading of only the lower crown had a larger negative impact on the bud expansion and growth than did uniform shading, and the effect was stronger in pine relative to spruce. In addition, lower branches in pine also had lower carbon reserves, and reduced xylem-area specific conductivity compared to spruce. For both species, but particularly the pine, the needles of lower branches tended to store less C than upper branches in the asymmetric shade, which could suggest a movement of reserves away from the lower branches. The implications of these findings correspond with the inherent shade tolerance and self-pruning behavior of these conifers and supports a carbon based mechanism for branch mortality--mediated by an asymmetry in light exposure of the crown.
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".