What happens when stems are embolized in a centrifuge? Testing the cavitron theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vulnerability curves (VCs) measure the ability of vessels to retain metastable water without embolisms that lower the hydraulic conductivity of stems. The fastest method of measuring VCs is the centrifuge technique and the Cochard cavitron is a method that allows measurement of hydraulic conductivity of stems while they are spinning. This paper describes the pattern of embolism that results after spinning the stems of hybrid aspen (Populus tremula×P. tremuloides) and two hybrid cottonwoods (P38P38 P. balsamifera×P. simonii and Northwest, which is a hybrid of P. deltoides×P. balsamifera). It is recognized that the pattern of embolism induced in a centrifuge ought to differ from the pattern during natural dehydration of plants because the profiles of tension vs distance greatly differ under the two modes of inducing stress. The pattern of embolism was visualized by a staining technique and quantified by traditional measurements of percentage loss conductivity (PLC) performed on subsample segments excised from spun stems. We found a pattern of embolism approximating that expected from theory: (1) PLC near the axis of rotation exceeded the average; (2) PLC was quite high near the ends of the stems, even though tension ought to be zero; (3) large vessels cavitated before small vessels; (4) more embolism occurred near the base than near the apex of the stems. However, we could not always scale up from subsample conductivity and PLC to whole-stem conductivity. This pattern of embolism is interpreted in terms of vessel diameter and vessel length.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".