MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2002069840 · doi:10.1139/b00-158

The role of epicormic shoot production in maintaining foliage in old <i>Pseudotsuga menziesii</i> (Douglas-fir) trees

2001· article· en· W2002069840 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hiroaki Ishii, E. David Ford

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Botany · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShootCrown (dentistry)BiologyDouglas firHorticultureBotanyLongevityMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.628
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.183 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations62
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of BotanySame topicForest ecology and managementFrench-language works237,207