MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2015574069 · doi:10.1139/x04-033

Morphological and physiological traits influencing biomass productivity in short-rotation coppice poplar

2004· article· en· W2015574069 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Anne M. Rae, Kathryn M. Robinson, Nathaniel R. Street, Gail Taylor

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBioenergy crop production and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoppicingShort rotation coppiceShort rotation forestryBiomass (ecology)BiologyPopulus trichocarpaHeritabilityAgronomyGrowing seasonBotanyWoody plant

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fast-growing hybrid poplar (Populus spp.) have potential as a short-rotation coppice crop grown for biomass energy. This work identifies traits for fast growth studied in an American interspecific pedigree derived from Populus trichocarpa Torr. & A. Gray × Populus deltoides Marsh. grown in the United Kingdom for the first time. The biomass yield after the first coppice rotation was estimated to range from 0.04 to 23.68 oven-dried t·ha–1·year–1. This great range suggests that genotypes from this pedigree may be used to understand the genetic basis of high yield in short-rotation coppice, which would be advantageous for informing breeding programs for biomass crops. Relationships between stem, leaf, cell traits, and biomass yield were investigated. Partial least-squares analysis was used to order the traits by importance. The traits most influential on biomass were maximum stem height throughout the growing season, basal diameter, number of stems, and number of sylleptic branches, which showed high heritability, indicating excellent potential for breeding programs. The leaf traits, leaf area, number of leaves on the leading stem, and plastochron index were also associated with an increase in biomass, leading to a better understanding of this trait.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations129
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicBioenergy crop production and managementFrench-language works237,207