Carbon content variation in boles of mature sugar maple and giant sequoia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At present, a carbon (C) content of 50% (w/w) in dry wood is widely accepted as a generic value; however, few wood C measurements have been reported. We used elemental analysis to investigate C content per unit of dry matter and observed that it varied both radially and vertically in boles of two old-growth tree species: sugar maple (Acer saccharum Marsh.) and giant sequoia (Sequoiadendron giganteum (Lindl.) Bucholz). In sugar maple there was considerable variation in tree ring widths among four radii for particular annual layers of xylem, revealing that the annual rate of C assimilation differs around the circumference and from the base of each tree to its top, but the observed variation in C content was unrelated to diameter growth rate and strongly related to the calendar year when the wood was formed. Carbon content in sugar maple wood increased in an approximately linear fashion, from < 50 to 51% from pith to cambium, at both the base and top of the boles. In giant sequoia, C was essentially constant at > 55% across many hundreds of years of heartwood, but it declined abruptly at the sapwood-heartwood boundary and remained lower in all sapwood samples, an indication that heartwood formation involves anabolic metabolism. Factors that may be responsible for the different C contents and trends with age between sugar maple and sequoia trees are considered. Tree-ring data from this study do not support some of the key assumptions made by dendrochronology.
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".