MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1990277303 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2015-0039

Leaf area allometrics and morphometrics in baldcypress

2015· article· en· W1990277303 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Scott T. Allen, Margaret L. Whitsell, Richard F. Keim

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAllometryTaxodiumCanopyLeaf area indexBasal areaSpecific leaf areaBiologyMorphometricsTree allometryBotanyHorticultureEcologyPhotosynthesis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Leaf area relationships are important physiologically and ecologically but are not well studied in baldcypress (Taxodium distichum (L.) Rich. var. distichum). Tree leaf area (LA) and leaf area index (LAI) were measured in a wetland in southern Louisiana by dissecting crowns of felled trees and by scaling stand-level measurements with allometry. Branchlet morphology ranged from flat and open with high specific leaf area (87.2 ± 30.7 cm2·g−1; mean ± SD) to scaled with appressed leaves and low specific leaf area (22.1 ± 11.6 cm2·g−1). Leaves were more appressed higher in the canopy. Tree LA was strongly related to sapwood basal area (SBA), and SBA was related to diameter; these allometric relationships enabled estimating LA from diameters. At the plot level, LAI estimated by allometric relationship (ranging from 1.8 to 10.2) was not linearly related to output from an optical canopy analyzer measuring light extinction; ratios of allometric to optical methods were 0.8 for the sparsest plot and 2.4 for the densest plot. LAI was less in deeper flooded plots (3.6 ± 0.6) than in transiently flooded plots (8.4 ± 0.6), but it is unclear whether this represents a difference in maximum LAI or delayed attainment of maximum LAI in lower areas.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations13
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest Research→Same topicPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics→French-language works237,207→