MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2144483707 · doi:10.1093/treephys/tpn044

Wood formation in Abies balsamea seedlings subjected to artificial defoliation

2009· article· en· W2144483707 on OpenAlexafffund
Sergio Rossi, Sonia Simard, Annie Deslauriers, Hubert Morin

Bibliographic record

VenueTree Physiology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Chicoutimi
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsXylemAbies balsameaSpruce budwormBiologyShootBotanyCambiumLepidoptera genitaliaHorticultureAgronomyBalsamTortricidae

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We determined the cambial sensitivity and quantified the anatomical differences in xylem of Abies balsamea (L.) Mill. seedlings subjected to artificial defoliation to simulate spruce budworm feeding. Defoliation was performed by removing two-thirds of needles of all current-year shoots for up to four consecutive growth cycles to account for inter- and intra-annual xylem formation. In Experiment 1, xylem development was studied from May to October 2005 in seedlings defoliated at the end of June. In Experiment 2, anatomical features of the xylem were measured along the tree rings formed in 2005 and 2006 during the four cycles of growth and defoliation. Control and defoliated seedlings showed similar patterns of cambial activity and timing of xylem differentiation, although fewer enlarging cells were observed in August to September in defoliated seedlings. Tree-ring widths were similar in control and defoliated seedlings, with thinner rings produced in the greenhouse in winter. No effect of defoliation on cell lumen area was observed, and effects on radial cell diameter and wall thickness were found only occasionally. The results indicate that the A. balsamea seedlings produced all the resources required to maintain stem growth during the four cycles of defoliation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.946
Threshold uncertainty score0.677

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.230 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations31
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTree PhysiologySame topicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesFrench-language works237,207