Hydraulic acclimation to shading in boreal conifers of varying shade tolerance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine how shading affects the hydraulic and wood-anatomical characteristics of four boreal conifers (Pinus banksiana, Pinus contorta, Picea glauca and Picea mariana) that differ in shade tolerance. Plants were grown in an open field and under a deciduous-dominated overstory for 6 years. Sapwood- and leaf-area specific conductivity, vulnerability curves, and anatomical measurements (light and scanning electron microscopy) were made on leading shoots from six to nine trees of each treatment combination. There was no difference in sapwood-area specific conductivity between open-grown and understory conifers, although two of four species had larger tracheid diameters in the open. Shaded conifers appeared to compensate for small diameter tracheids by changes in pit membrane structure. Scanning electron microscopy revealed that understory conifers had thinner margo strands, greater maximum pore size in the margo, and more torus extensions. All of these trends may contribute to inadequate sealing of the torus. This is supported by the fact that all species showed increased vulnerability to cavitation when grown in the understory. Although evaporative demand in an understory environment is low, a rapid change into fully exposed conditions could be detrimental for shaded conifers.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".