Primary longitudinal resin canals in lodgepole pine occur in Fibonacci numbers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Primary (nontraumatic) longitudinal resin canals (RCs) in immature (expanding) and mature stems of lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta Dougl. ex Loud. var. latifolia Engelm.) were found to occur in Fibonacci (F) numbers (specifically 5, 8, 13, and 21). The most commonly observed number of RCs in immature stem circumferences was 13 (53% of all immature stems surveyed), but 8, 21, and 5 were also observed in decreasing order of prevalence, respectively. In general, the greater the immature stem diameter, the higher the F number of the RCs. However, branch order appeared to have the greatest effect on the number of RCs. Specifically, the leader (1° axis) generally had 21 RCs in the terminal bud and 13 in the lateral buds. All other terminal axes (i.e., 2°, 3°, 4°) tended to 13, while associated lateral axes tended to 8. The same general relationships between number of RCs, stem diameter, and branch order were also observed for mature (woody) branchlets of lodgepole pine, for example, 13 RCs were also the most prevalent F number observed (i.e., in 48% of the observed branchlets). The phyllotactic chirality was also assessed for mature branch samples. A tree tends to retain a phyllotactic chirality (or handedness) as branch order increases, despite decreases in the number of RCs from 21 to 5 from low to high branch orders. The implication of these findings to helical phyllotactic development in conifers is discussed.Key words: Fibonacci numbers, resin canals, lodgepole pine, Pinus contorta var. latifolia, phyllotaxis.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 teacher head, 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".