Stem form and compression wood formation in young Pinus radiata trees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The crooked stems of some individuals of radiata pine ( Pinus radiata D. Don) can hinder volume recovery and wood quality. To infer causes of crookedness and to learn how lean angle affects compression wood (CW) formation we studied 5-year-old trees in southern Chile. Eight initially straight and eight initially crooked trees were tethered initially to angles of 15° or 30° or were left untethered for 131 days (48 trees total). There were no significant differences between straight and crooked trees in the extent of CW in pretreatment wood or in the relationship between stem angle and CW extent. Crooked trees, however, righted themselves more quickly than did straight trees at angles <15°, a result that supports the overcompensation hypothesis for the development of crooked stems. Stem angle had a complex effect on CW extent. In 2- to 3-year-old wood there was no meaningful effect of angle on CW extent. One-year-old wood produced less CW at stem angles <10° than at stem angles >10°, but above or below that threshold, there was no meaningful effect of angle on CW extent. The intertree differences in CW extent, as well as the correlation of leader CW extent with bole CW in the best individuals, suggests that CW assays could be used for early screening for wood quality.
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".