Evidence that branches of evergreen angiosperm and coniferous trees differ in hydraulic conductance but not in Huber values
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The hydraulic efficiency conferred by vessels is regarded as one of the key innovations explaining the historical rise of the angiosperms at the expense of the gymnosperms. Few studies, however, have compared the structure and function of xylem and their relationships with foliage traits in evergreen representatives of both groups. We measured sapwood cross-sectional area, conduit diameters, hydraulic conductance, and leaf area of fine branches (2.5–7.5 mm diameter) of five conifers and eight evergreen angiosperm trees in evergreen temperate forests in south-central Chile. Conductance of both lineages was higher at Los Lleuques, a warm temperate site with strong Mediterranean influence, than in a cool temperate rain forest at Puyehue. At a common sapwood cross-sectional area, angiosperm branches at both sites had greater hydraulic conductance (G) than conifers, but similar leaf areas. Branch conductance normalized by subtended leaf area (GL) at both sites was, therefore, higher in angiosperms than in conifers. Hydraulically weighted mean conduit diameters were much larger in angiosperms than in conifers, although this difference was less marked at Puyehue, the cooler of the two sites. Conduits of the vesselless rain forest angiosperm Drimys winteri J.R. & G. Forst were wider than those of coniferous associates, although narrower than angiosperm vessels. However, GL of D. winteri was within the range of values measured for vesselbearing angiosperms at the same site. The observed differences in xylem structure and function correlate with evidence that evergreen angiosperms have higher average stomatal conductance and photosynthetic capacity than their coniferous associates in southern temperate forests. Comparisons of conifers and angiosperm branches thus suggest that the superior capacity of angiosperm conduits is attributable to the development of higher gas-exchange rates per unit leaf area, rather than to a more extensive leaf area. Results also suggest that the tracheary elements of some vesselless angiosperms differ in width and hydraulic efficiency from conifer tracheids.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".