Branching, biomass distribution, and light capture efficiency in a pioneer tree, <i>Rhus trichocarpa</i>, in a secondary forest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Crown architecture and biomass distribution patterns were investigated in relation to branching and tree size in a pioneer species, Rhus trichocarpa Miq. (Anacardiaceae), in a Japanese secondary forest. Crown architecture changed with tree size and with branching. Crown depth and area were greater in taller trees. In addition, branched trees had crowns of greater depth, and crown area increased more rapidly with increasing height in branched trees as compared with unbranched trees. In contrast, biomass distribution to nonphotosynthetic and photosynthetic organs changed only with tree size and was similar in unbranched and branched trees of similar size. Light capture efficiency was related to neither height nor branching status for trees with heights of 1–2.5 m. Coexistence of unbranched and branched trees at the height around the onset of branching is possible because these trees realize similar biomass distribution patterns and light capture efficiencies. Individual leaf area and leaf area index increased with tree size in unbranched trees but decreased with tree size in branched trees. These results suggest that several leaf clusters of limited size are sparsely arranged in a large three-dimensional space in tall trees.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".