MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1972558323 · doi:10.1139/b02-002

Spiral phyllotaxis of needle fascicles on branches and scales on cones in <i>Pinus contorta</i> var. <i>latifolia</i>: Are they influenced by wood-grain spiral?

2002· article· en· W1972558323 on OpenAlexfundvenueno aff
Arthur L. Fredeen, Jeanne A Horning, Robert W Madill

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Botany · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTree Root and Stability Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPhyllotaxisClockwiseSpiral (railway)GeometryBiologyBotanyMathematicsRotation (mathematics)Shoot

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neither the relationship between the chirality of spiral phyllotaxis and spiral wood grain nor the cause or ontogeny of such a relationship has been examined previously. To this end, chirality of the spiral in phyllotaxis of needle fascicles and cone scales were contrasted with wood-grain spiral in seedlings, young, and mature trees of Rocky Mountain lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta Dougl. ex Loud. var. latifolia Engelm.) in central British Columbia. To assess chirality of phyllotaxis, the relationship between numbers of contact parastichies and chirality of phyllotaxis in scales on cones and needle fascicles on branchlets was determined. Three or 8 clockwise acropetal contact parastichies were indicative of a clockwise generative spiral, while totals of 2, 5, or 13 clockwise acropetal parastichies were indicative of a counter-clockwise generative spiral. Lodgepole pine trees were nearly always chimeric, i.e., having clockwise and counter-clockwise phyllotaxis on the same individual, but there was a high overall correspondence between the chirality of phyllotaxis in cone scales and subtending needle fascicles. Seedlings (<1.5 years old) had no measurable wood-grain angle and clockwise and counter-clockwise phyllotaxis occurred in equal proportions. However, young trees (13–15 years since planting) had a pronounced clockwise bias to their wood-grain spiral in contrast with a counter-clockwise bias in phyllotaxis. In contrast, mature trees ([Formula: see text]100 years old) had the reverse trend and exhibited a counter-clockwise bias in wood-grain spiral but a clockwise bias in phyllotaxis. A model is proposed to explain how chirality of spiral wood grain could generate an inverse bias in the chirality of phyllotaxis in lodgepole pine.Key words: lodgepole pine, Pinus contorta var. latifolia, phyllotaxis, generative spiral, Fibonacci numbers, spiral wood grain.

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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.179 · 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

Citations8
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of BotanySame topicTree Root and Stability StudiesFrench-language works237,207