Whole-tree water relations of co-occurring mature Pinus palustris and Pinus elliottii var.<i>elliottii</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The natural range of longleaf pine ( Pinus palustris P. Mill.) and slash pine ( Pinus elliottii var. elliottii Engelm.) includes most of the southeastern US Coastal Plain, and there is now considerable interest in using these species for ecological forestry, restoration, and carbon sequestration. It is therefore surprising that little information is currently available concerning differences in their ecological water relations in natural stands. In this study, we compared water use, stomatal conductance at the crown scale (G crown ), and whole-tree hydraulic conductance of mature pine trees growing in a naturally regenerated mixed stand on a flatwoods site in north-central Florida. We found remarkable similarities between longleaf and slash pine in stored water use, nocturnal transpiration, and whole-tree hydraulic conductance. Mean daily transpiration rate was higher for slash than for longleaf pine, averaging 39 and 26 L·tree –1 , respectively. This difference was determined by variations in tree leaf area. Slash pine had 60% more leaf area per unit basal sapwood area than longleaf pine, but the larger plasticity of longleaf pine stomatal regulation partially compensated for leaf area differences: longleaf pine had higher G crown on days with high volumetric water content (θ v ) but this was reduced to similar or even lower values than for slash pine on days with low θ v . There was no species difference in the sensitivity of G crown to increasing vapor pressure deficit.
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".