Species-specific variation in shoot production patterns of five birch species with respect to vegetative and reproductive shoots
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We tested whether the difference in shoot production patterns of reproductive and vegetative shoots is only due to resource or meristem availability or also due to species-specific factors. Rates of shoot production by four shoot types (reproductive long shoots, vegetative long shoots, reproductive short shoots, and vegetative short shoots) in Betula platyphylla Sukatchev var. japonica (Miq.) Hara, Betula davurica Pall., Betula ermanii Cham., Betula grossa Sieb. et Zucc., and Betula maximowicziana Regel were compared. In the first three species, each shoot type produced all four shoot types. However, in the latter species, limited shoot production pathways were found both in reproductive shoots and in vegetative shoots, which do not carry any costs associated with reproduction. Furthermore, shoot production by reproductive shoots was not always diminished, but rather was enhanced compared with that by vegetative shoots in B. maximowicziana. These results suggest the importance of species-specific patterns in shoot production, in addition to previously suggested explanations involving resource or meristem limitation.Key words: species specificity, cost of reproduction, Betula, reproductive shoots, vegetative shoots.
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 | 0.001 | 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".