Seasonal differences in freezing tolerance of yellow-cedar and western hemlock trees at a site affected by yellow-cedar decline
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To assess whether inadequate cold hardiness could be a contributor to yellow-cedar (Chamaecyparis nootkatensis (D. Don) Spach) decline, we measured the freezing tolerance of foliage from yellow-cedar trees in closed-canopy (nondeclining) and open-canopy (declining at elevations below 130 m) stands at three sites along an elevational gradient in the heart of the decline in southeastern Alaska. Foliar freezing tolerance was also assessed for sympatric nondeclining western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla (Raf.) Sarg.). Measurements were made in the fall, winter, and spring to evaluate if seasonal differences in cold hardiness help explain species-specific injury. Significant differences in freezing tolerance attributable to site, canopy closure, species, and the interaction of canopy closure and species were each detected for at least one sample period. However, only two results were consistent with field reports of yellow-cedar decline: (1) between winter and spring measurements, yellow-cedar trees dehardened almost 13 °C more than western hemlock trees, so that yellow-cedar trees were more vulnerable to foliar freezing injury in spring than western hemlock; and (2) stands below 130 m appeared more vulnerable to freezing injury than stands above 130 m.
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".