Wind tunnel measurements of crown streamlining and drag relationships for several hardwood species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding tree susceptibility to wind damage is central to natural disturbance and succession studies. Susceptibility depends on the wind loads experienced by trees and their ability to resist these loads. In this study, we investigated the wind force or "drag" acting on the crowns of juvenile specimens of three hardwood species common to northwestern North America, black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa Torr. & A. Gray), red alder (Alnus rubra Bong.), and paper birch (Betula papyrifera Marsh.). Ten freshly cut crowns of each species were exposed to wind speeds from 4 to 20 m/s in a wind tunnel. At 20 m/s, streamlining reduced the frontal area to 28% of its initial value for black cottonwood, 37% for red alder, and 20% for paper birch. Crown drag coefficients calculated using frontal area in still air varied with wind speed. At 20 m/s they ranged from 0.15 to 0.22 for these species. Drag was proportional to the product of mass and wind speed, and to the product of wind speed squared and wind-speed-specific frontal area. Removing branches by whole-branch pruning had little effect on drag per unit branch mass. To further investigate the effect of leaf size, we also used smaller samples of bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum Pursh) and trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.). Whole-crown drag coefficients did not vary systematically with leaf size, but drag per unit of crown mass increased with leaf size. Bigleaf maple had a higher drag per unit of crown mass than other species.
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".