MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2157055389 · doi:10.1093/forestry/cpr012

Genome-wide responses to drought in forest trees

2011· article· en· W2157055389 on OpenAlexafffund
Erin T. Hamanishi, Malcolm M. Campbell

Bibliographic record

VenueForestry An International Journal of Forest Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of TorontoGenome Canada
KeywordsGenomeBiologyTree (set theory)AgroforestryDrought stressEcologyForest healthGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Drought is a significant threat to forest health and the establishment of productive tree plantations. There is therefore great interest in understanding the mechanisms underpinning drought responses in forest trees. This review considers the means by which plants in general, and forest trees specifically, both detect and respond to water limitation. The review focuses on molecular-level responses to a drought stimulus, with an emphasis on responses that involve genome-wide reconfigurations in transcript abundance and protein complement in forest trees. A historical view of the molecular analysis of such responses shows a remarkable transition from understanding the impact of drought on individual genes to a more comprehensive picture of the suites of genes and proteins that constitute a drought response. Attention is paid to how this understanding might further the aims of preserving forest health and improve plantation productivity. The review suggests that genome-wide analysis of forest tree drought responses can be leveraged to provide new tools for conservation of adaptive variation and targets for selective breeding or directed modification of forest tree genotypes that can better contend with future drought scenarios.

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)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.774

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.273 · 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

Citations134
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueForestry An International Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicPlant Water Relations and Carbon DynamicsFrench-language works237,207