The standard centrifuge method accurately measures vulnerability curves of long‐vesselled olive stems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The standard centrifuge method has been frequently used to measure vulnerability to xylem cavitation. This method has recently been questioned. It was hypothesized that open vessels lead to exponential vulnerability curves, which were thought to be indicative of measurement artifact. We tested this hypothesis in stems of olive (Olea europea) because its long vessels were recently claimed to produce a centrifuge artifact. We evaluated three predictions that followed from the open vessel artifact hypothesis: shorter stems, with more open vessels, would be more vulnerable than longer stems; standard centrifuge-based curves would be more vulnerable than dehydration-based curves; and open vessels would cause an exponential shape of centrifuge-based curves. Experimental evidence did not support these predictions. Centrifuge curves did not vary when the proportion of open vessels was altered. Centrifuge and dehydration curves were similar. At highly negative xylem pressure, centrifuge-based curves slightly overestimated vulnerability compared to the dehydration curve. This divergence was eliminated by centrifuging each stem only once. The standard centrifuge method produced accurate curves of samples containing open vessels, supporting the validity of this technique and confirming its utility in understanding plant hydraulics. Seven recommendations for avoiding artefacts and standardizing vulnerability curve methodology are provided.
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 | 0.001 | 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".