Stem and root comparative wood anatomy of (Calligonum comosum) In the deserts of Iran and short sight to technical properties of fabricated of particleboard from its wood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding of many wood technological features depends on anatomical characteristics which, unfortunately, researchers in Iran have not focused on recently. There are many trees and shrubs in the desert areas of Dasht-e Kavir and Dasht-e Lut with unstudied woody anatomical features. We studied one of these species, Calligonum comosum (Polygonaceae). Three mature shrubs were selected and small cubic samples of woody stem and root were taken. Micro-sections were obtained with micro-tome and after dying with Astra-blue and Safranin the sections were mounted in Canada balsam. The results showed that many differences between roots and stems exist, such as distinct growth rings in the stems and indistinct rings in the roots, the presence of gums in the stems and absence in the roots, and lower ray width of the stems compared to the roots, inherent characteristics that have been reported by many other researchers. The most important difference between Calligonum comosum’s roots and stems is parenchyma-like fibers in the thin-walled roots which cannot be distinguished from axial parenchyma. The ground tissue of woody roots is parenchymatous cells full of starches, which probably can be related to the drought situation of deserts. The bark of Calligonum comosum has priderm and sclereid cells which make the bark stiff and hard. Also the result of particleboard of fabricated of Calligonum comosum’s wood showed that boards has at least technical characteristics of European Standard EN 312 and hence the silviculture of this species for stooping of erosion of soil and is suitable species for desertification and its wood can be used for producing of wood based panel.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".