Leaf attributes in the seasonally dry tropics: a comparison of four habitats in northern Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Patterns of leaf attributes were compared at regional and global scales in relation to the seasonal availability of water. Light‐saturated assimilation rate (Amass), leaf mass per area (LMA), leaf density, thickness, life span, saturated water content, chlorophyll, nitrogen and phosphorus content were determined during the wet season for 21 tree species in four contrasting habitats in northern Australia. Rainfall in this area is extremely seasonal. A mass and foliar chlorophyll, N and P contents were positively correlated with each other, and were all negatively correlated with LMA, leaf thickness, density and life span. Deciduous species had smaller LMA and leaf life span, and larger foliar N and P contents than did evergreen species. The eight Myrtaceous species had smaller Amass, foliar chlorophyll, N and P contents, and larger LMA, leaf thickness and leaf life span than did the non‐Myrtaceous species. Leaves from the closed canopy dry monsoon forest had significantly larger Amass, chlorophyll and P contents than did leaves from the three open canopy habitats (eucalypt open forest, mixed woodland and Melaleuca swamp). This reflected the relatively low proportions of evergreen and Myrtaceous species in the dry monsoon forest. There were also significant intraspecific differences among habitats. Leaf thickness, density and LMA were lower than predicted from globally derived relationships with temperature and precipitation. Tropical seasonally dry biomes are under‐represented in such global analyses.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".