The role of epicormic shoot production in maintaining foliage in old <i>Pseudotsuga menziesii</i> (Douglas-fir) trees II. Basal reiteration from older branch axes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Basal reiteration (epicormic shoot production from older branch axes) occurred continuously and repeatedly in branches of 450-year-old Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco var. menziesii (coastal Douglas-fir) trees reproducing sections of branches comprising less than 100 to as many as 10 000 foliated shoots. Basal reiteration occurred mostly from primary and secondary branch axes but also occurred from higher-order axes if lower-order axes had died back. Basal reiteration occurred in distal sections of upper-crown branches, while it occurred in more proximal sections of middle- and lower-crown branches, indicating that basal reiteration works to distribute foliage more uniformly within branches that have reached maximum size. Basal reiteration occurred repeatedly producing two to six generations of reiterated axes within branches. Less than 22.5% of foliated shoots on branches were produced by sequential branching of the primary axis. Basal reiteration also maintained a constant rate of new shoot production within the branch. Growth-ring analysis showed that basal reiteration occurred over a wide range of axis ages (558 years). In conjunction with previous studies, we showed that adaptive reiteration of various architectural units by epicormic shoot production is an inherent process that maintains foliage in the crown of old P. menziesii trees.Key words: branch growth, branching pattern, crown maintenance, longevity.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".