Sapwood hydraulic recovery following thinning in lodgepole pine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sapflow in lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) was measured over the summer of 2002 to assess the impact of reduced sapwood permeability (k) after thinning on tree water use.Lodgepole pine in recently thinned (RT), thinned five years prior (5T), and un-thinned (C) stands were instrumented with thermal dissipation sap flow sensors.Daily water use varied considerably (10.8-0.04L Day -1 ), but trees in the thinned areas used more water.Despite lower k and leaf specific hydraulic capacity (Q L ) in both RT and 5T trees, leaf related sapflow rates (Q l ) were generally higher than for C trees.RT trees appeared to experience water stress immediately following thinning in June, but by mid August maintained higher Q l and canopy stomatal conductance than both 5T and C trees.Allocation to radial growth following thinning appears to maintain sufficient sapwood area, and may offset damage to conducting tissues enabling lodgepole pine trees to tolerate periodic water stress.sapflow / hydraulic capacity / transpiration / thinning / lodgepole pine Résumé -Rétablissement hydraulique de l'aubier suivant une éclaircie chez Pinus contorta.Le flux de sève a été mesuré chez Pinus contorta pendant l'été 2002 afin d'estimer l'impact de la réduction de perméabilité des tissus de l'aubier (k) sur l'utilisation de l'eau par l'arbre après éclaircie.Des détecteurs de dissipation thermique destinés à mesurer le flux de sève ont été installés sur plusieurs arbres dans différentes parcelles : récemment éclaircie (RT), éclaircie depuis 5 ans (T) et parcelle témoin non éclaircie (C).La consommation quotidienne d'eau varie considérablement (10,8 à 0,04 L par jour), mais les arbres des peuplements éclaircis consomment davantage d'eau que les arbres témoins.Malgré une baisse de k et de la capacité hydraulique foliaire spécifique (QL), le taux foliaire du flux de sève (Ql) était généralement plus élevé pour RT et T que pour C. Les arbres du traitement RT ont semblé subir un stress hydrique immédiatement après l'éclaircie en juin, mais à la mi-août ils ont gardé un Ql et une conductance stomatique plus élevés que les arbres des traitements 5T et C. La croissance radiale après éclaircie semble maintenir une surface d'aubier suffisante et compenser les dommages causés à l'aubier et permettre aux arbres de tolérer des stress hydriques périodiques.flux de sève / capacité hydraulique / transpiration / éclaircie / Pinus contorta
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".