Freezing tolerance of conifer seeds and germinants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Survival after freezing was measured for seeds and germinants of four seedlots each of interior spruce (Picea glauca x engelmannii complex), lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta Dougl. ex Loud.), Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco) and western red cedar (Thuja plicata Donn ex D. Donn). Effects of eight seed treatments on post-freezing survival of seeds and germinants were tested: dry, imbibed and stratified seed, and seed placed in a growth chamber for 2, 5, 10, 15, 20 or 30 days in a 16-h photoperiod and a 22/17 degrees C thermoperiod. Survival was related to the water content of seeds and germinants, germination rate and seedlot origin. After freezing for 3 h at -196 degrees C, dry seed of most seedlots of interior spruce, Douglas-fir and western red cedar had 84-96% germination, whereas lodgepole pine seedlots had 53-82% germination. Freezing tolerance declined significantly after imbibition in lodgepole pine, Douglas-fir and interior spruce seed (western red cedar was not tested), and mean LT50 of imbibed seed of these species was -30, -24.5 and -20 degrees C, respectively. Freezing tolerance continued to decline to a minimum LT50 of -4 to -7 degrees C after 10 days in a growth chamber for interior spruce, Douglas-fir and lodgepole pine, or after 15 days for western red cedar. Minimum freezing tolerance was reached at the stage of rapid hypocotyl elongation. In all species, a slight increase in freezing tolerance of germinants was observed once cotyledons emerged from the seed coat. The decrease in freezing tolerance during the transition from dry to germinating seed correlated with increases in seed water content. Changes in freezing tolerance between 10 and 30 days in the growth chamber were not correlated with seedling water content. Within a species, seedlots differed significantly in freezing tolerance after 2 or 5 days in the growth chamber. Because all seedlots of interior spruce and lodgepole pine germinated quickly, there was no correlation between seedlot hardiness and rate of germination. Germination rate and freezing tolerance of Douglas-fir and western red cedar seedlots was negatively correlated. There was a significant correlation between LT50 after 10 days in the growth chamber and minimum spring temperature at the location of seedlot origin for interior spruce and three seedlots of western red cedar, but no relationship was apparent for lodgepole pine and Douglas-fir.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 teacher head, 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".