Effects of serial propagation, donor age, and genotype on<i>Chamaecyparis nootkatensis</i>physiology and growth traits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clonal replicates of Chamaecyparis nootkatensis (D. Don) Spach rooted cuttings (ramets) originating from pruned donor hedges (ortets) were grown for 3 years in a completely randomized common garden in southwestern British Columbia. Ramets were cut when ortets were 3, 7, 11, and 15 years old; selected ramets were also serially propagated for one, two, or three cycles, 4 years apart. Serial propagation and physiological and chronological aging effects of ortets on ramets were evaluated for photosynthetic and gas exchange parameters, rooting, height, biomass, and cold hardiness. Genotypic variation typically exceeded treatment differences. Excepting several genotypes, serial propagation had no significant effect on aging for pruned plants. Some genotypes had crooked or plagiotropic growth. These differences strengthened with ortet age, but serial propagation effects varied with genotype. Rooting success was similar across treatments. Detrimental effects of ortet aging were detected only at age 15. Clonal rooting differences were obscured by age 7; 15-year-old material had the lowest rooting success and smallest individuals. Serially propagated ramets from 15-year-old ortets had smaller shoots. No consistent trends were caused by age or serial propagation for other traits. Serial propagation can successfully mass produce tested elite yellow-cedar planting stock up to age 15.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".