Evaluation of centrifugal methods for measuring xylem cavitation in conifers, diffuse‐ and ring‐porous angiosperms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A centrifugal method is used to measure 'vulnerability curves' which show the loss of hydraulic conductivity in xylem by cavitation. Until recently, conductivity was measured between bouts of centrifugation using a gravity-induced head. Now, conductivity can be measured during centrifugation. This 'spin' method is faster than the 'gravity' technique, but correspondence between the two has not been evaluated. The two methods were compared on the same stem segments for two conifer, four diffuse-porous, and four ring-porous species. Only 17 of 60 conductivity measurements differed, with differences in the order of 10%. When different, the spin method gave higher conductivities at the beginning of the curve and lower at the end. Pressure at 50% loss of conductivity, and mean cavitation pressure, were the same in 14 of 20 comparisons. When different, the spin method averaged 0.32 MPa less negative. Ring-porous species showed a precipitous initial drop in conductivity by both techniques. This striking pattern was confirmed by the air-injection method and native embolism measurements. Close correspondence inspires confidence in both methods, each of which has unique advantages. The observation that ring-porous species operate at only a fraction of their potential conductivity at midday demands further study.
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".