Effects of mechanical stimulus, shade, and nitrogen fertilization on morphology and bending resistance in Douglas-fir seedlings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Three-year-old coastal Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco) seedlings were planted in a factorial experiment with three levels of shading (0, 30, and 60%), three levels of mechanical stimulus (staked, freestanding, and bent), and two levels of nitrogen fertilization (0 and 200 kg/ha) to investigate the separate and combined effects of these factors on morphology and bending resistance. Fertilization increased branch angle and increased the sensitivity of branch and leader extension to bending stresses but did not affect volume increment, stem form, or bending resistance. The effects of shading and mechanical treatments on morphology were independent and additive. Shading reduced stem diameter and volume increment, but did not affect height increment, producing more slender trees. Bending produced less slender trees through a combination of reduced height increment and increased diameter increment. Staking did not affect tree morphology. Trees under heavy shade were responsive to bending but were more slender and had lower bending resistance than unshaded trees with the same mechanical stimulus. These results point towards the biological basis for the development of tree instability in high density stands.
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 | 0.000 | 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".