MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2059356675 · doi:10.1139/b02-059

Trunk and main-branch development in <i>Nothofagus pumilio</i> (Nothofagaceae): a retrospective analysis of tree growth

2002· article· en· W2059356675 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Alfredo Passo, J.G. Puntieri, Daniel Barthélémy

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Botany · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShootTrunkBiologyBotanyNothofagusLateral shootHorticulturePopulationAxillary budDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The development of the trunk and main branches of approximately 26-year-old Nothofagus pumilio (Poepp. et Endl.) Krasser trees was studied. The length and number of leaves of annual shoots were recorded for 56 trees from a natural population. Morphological and macroanatomical features allowed the identification of shoot apex deaths and the axillary positions from which branches and relay shoots derived. The trees had a mean height of approximately 6 m and a mean basal diameter of approximately 8 cm. The length of trunk shoots increased from the first years to the intermediate years of tree growth and decreased for the last 6 years of tree growth. The maximum length and number of leaves of trunk shoots were registered for the years around 1985, when tree age was about 17 years. The likelihood of apex death for trunk shoots was minimum for the period of maximum trunk shoot size. Despite the fact that the architectural features of the sampled trees corresponded to those of young, vigorously growing trees, they seemed to have reached a stage of low annual height growth. A sharp decrease in trunk shoot size occurred in 1992, a year in which rainfall during the growing season reached the minimum for the lifetime of the sampled trees. The size of shoots developed after 1992 was, on average, lower than that of shoots developed before 1992. Stressful conditions in this year may relate to meristem ageing and thus to the size of shoots formed in the following years. Main branches started their development with shoots similar to those of the trunk but were clearly differentiated from the trunk 5 years later. The differentiation between main branch and trunk shoots involved not only a lower shoot size but also a higher number of leaves per shoot length unit in main branch than in trunk shoots.Key words: Nothofagus pumilio, architectural analysis, shoot, trunk development, branching pattern, morphogenetic gradient.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.174
Teacher spread0.168 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of BotanySame topicForest ecology and managementFrench-language works237,207