Stem eccentricity, crown dry mass distribution, and longitudinal growth strain of plantation-grown <i>Eucalyptus nitens</i> after thinning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Silvicultural treatments that aim to improve tree growth rates also have the potential to alter physical characteristics of the tree stem and thus affect the recovery of solid-wood products. We tested the hypothesis that manifest crown asymmetry in thinned Eucalyptus nitens (Deane & Maiden) Maiden plantations was affecting the development of stem shape. The crown and stem characteristics of 15 E. nitens trees from a 22-year-old thinning trial in northeastern Tasmania were examined. The trial had been thinned 16 years previously. Lowering the intensity of local intraspecific competition through thinning increased the crown dry mass in the north-facing aspect. No direct link was found between crown dry mass distribution and stem eccentricity. The direction of pith eccentricity at 3.0 m height was confined to the northwest and southeast sectors and averaged 11%; the degree of noncircularity in stems at 3.0 m height was strongly related to the ratio of stem diameter to total height squared. These results suggest that the dynamic loading from wind exposure plays a greater role in determining the extent and direction of pith eccentricity and stem cross-sectional circularity in E. nitens than does the static load from asymmetrical crown dry mass distribution.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".