Shoot morphology and fate of buds in relation to crown location in young<i>Fraxinus pennsylvanica</i>var.<i>subintegerrima</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relationships between shoot size and morphological patterns and crown location were investigated in 6-year-old green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica var. subintegerrima (Vahl) Fern.). In general, shoots were shorter in the inner part of the crown compared with either the top or bottom near the periphery. The differences were related to a reduction in both metamer number and length. In some cases the lower crown location was similar to the upper; in other cases it was similar to the inside. The fate of buds along a shoot was generally dependent on shoot position in the crown. A greater proportion of buds became lateral shoots and inflorescences in the top compared with the bottom of the crown, and the fewest developed towards the inside location. As the number of metamers per shoot increased, there was an increase in the proportion of lateral shoots produced and a decrease in the proportion of inflorescences and (or) aborted buds. For shoots with the same number of metamers per shoot, those in the top produced a greater proportion of inflorescences and lateral shoots compared with the bottom or inside. In all crown locations, the highest number of buds aborted near the base, the greatest proportion of inflorescences occurred in mid-shoot regions, and the largest proportion of lateral shoots occurred near the tip. The information presented in this paper will be used as a component in developing a simulation model of crown development.Key words: architecture, shoot, bud fate, green ash, metamer.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".