Missing growth rings at the trunk base in suppressed balsam fir saplings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Numerous researchers have suggested a causal relationship between low leaf biomass in suppressed trees and the lack of radial growth at the base of the trunk. The objective of this study was to verify this relationship with suppressed balsam fir (Abies balsamea (L.) Mill.) saplings found growing in an old-growth fir stand. A total of 29 saplings varying in height from 67 to 183 cm were uprooted. All saplings had adventitious roots. All terminal bud scars (TBS) found between the apex of the terminal leader and the trunk base (first adventitious root) as well as those found below ground were localized, and rings were counted between TBS along the aboveground trunk. Various morphological traits and the ratio of photosynthetic tissue dry mass (P, needles) to non-photosynthetic tissue dry mass (nP, aboveground stem) were used as an indicator of tree vigour. Between 3 and 33 rings counted along the aboveground trunk were missing at the trunk base. The number of missing rings at the base of the trunk was correlated with total height (r = 0.41), height growth (r = 0.51), radial growth (r = 0.44), the P/nP ratio (r = 0.73), and the proportion of live crown (r = 0.62). Moreover, from 2 to 35 additional rings, missing at the trunk base, were found in the belowground section of trunk and these missing rings were associated with the adventitious roots phenomenon. In conclusion, suppressed firs had missing rings at the base of the trunk. When all of the missing rings were added to the number of rings counted at the base of the trunk, age estimates provided a different temporal pattern of recruitment compared with that obtained by solely counting rings at the base of the trunk. Stem analysis on the entire trunk is the best aging method for suppressed balsam fir saplings.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
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".