Wood formation in Abies balsamea seedlings subjected to artificial defoliation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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) | 0.001 | 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".