Physiological and morphological attributes of shortleaf × loblolly pine F1 hybrid seedlings: is there an advantage to being a hybrid?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fire suppression and other anthropogenic activities have the potential to eliminate ecological barriers that previously kept related, sympatric species from interbreeding. We compared artificial F1 shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata Mill.) × loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) hybrids with their parents to determine potential traits that have allowed hybrid seedlings to dramatically increase in abundance since 1950s. Six open-pollinated families each of loblolly and shortleaf pine as well as 12 controlled crosses were compared over 2 years in Oklahoma, USA. Loblolly and hybrid seedlings had higher establishment and growth rates than shortleaf pine. The hybrid seedlings had similar numbers of sprouts following top-clipping as shortleaf, which were higher than those of loblolly pine. Formation of a strong basal crook, an adaptation to protect dormant buds from fire, was greatest in shortleaf and lower in hybrid and loblolly pine. Instantaneous water use efficiency indicated that hybrid pine had similar high water us...
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".