The influence of stand structure on ecophysiological leaf characteristics of <i>Pinus ponderosa</i> in western Montana
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of vertical arrangement of foliage in even-aged and multiaged stand structures of ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa Dougl. ex P. Laws. & C. Laws.) on overall stand growth, light interception, and physiological leaf properties were tested on five plot pairs in western Montana. The primary structural difference between stand structures involves greater canopy depth and stratification of foliage in the multiaged stands. Both area- and mass-based maximum photosynthetic rates (Aarea and Amass) were relatively constant with canopy depth in both stand structures. Area- and mass-based leaf nitrogen (Narea and Nmass) decreased with increasing canopy depth in the even-aged stand structures but not in the multiaged. Specific leaf area (SLA) tended to increase with increasing canopy depth, although this relationship was only significant in the multiaged stand structures. The typical linear relationship observed for many species between photosynthetic rate and leaf nitrogen was not present in either stand structure; however, Narea was highly correlated to SLA in both even-aged and multiaged stand structures (R2 = 0.66 and R2 = 0.52, respectively). There were no differences in the light extinction coefficient (k), basal area growth or efficiency, or stand-level leaf area index between even-aged and multiaged plot pairs. Relative constancy in leaf physiology combined with similarities in site occupancy and growth rates help explain how different stand structures of ponderosa pine maintain similar rates of woody biomass productivity.
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".