The role of epicormic shoot production in maintaining foliage in old <i>Pseudotsuga menziesii</i> (Douglas-fir) trees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Shoots and foliage on branches of old Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco var. menziesii (coastal Douglas-fir) trees are constantly renewed by epicormic shoot production. Epicormic shoots are produced in all parts of the crown, and epicormic buds remain dormant for 5 or 6 years on average. Epicormic shoot production results in reiteration of shoot cluster units (SCUs), an architectural unit of shoot organization within branches. Five phases of SCU development were identified based on relative age structures of regular and epicormic shoots. SCUs produce epicormic branchlets as early as 3 or 4 years of age, and peak production occurred around 6-13 years. Epicormic branchlets occur toward the proximal end of main axes of SCUs, where regular lateral branchlets are no longer producing new shoots. In some lower-crown branches, nearly 50% of shoots and foliage are epicormic shoots. Demographic analysis of SCUs showed that upper-crown branches are still growing in size, while mid- and lower-crown branches have reached maximum size, and are being maintained by reiteration of SCUs. Epicormic shoot production maintains shoots and foliage of old P. menziesii trees after height growth and crown expansion have stopped and may contribute to prolonging tree longevity.Key words: aging, branch growth, epicormic shoots, longevity, Pseudotsuga menziesii, reiteration.
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) | 0.000 | 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".