Effects of winter warming on cold hardiness and spring budbreak of four boreal conifers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Compared with the effects of spring frosts on opening buds or newly flushed tissues, winter freezing damage to conifers, owing to temperature fluctuations prior to budbreak, is rare and less known. In this study, changes in cold hardiness (measured based on electrolyte leakage and needle damage) and spring budbreak were assessed to examine the responses of four boreal conifer species — black spruce (Picea mariana (Mill.) B.S.P.), white spruce (Picea glauca) (Moench) Voss), jack pine (Pinus banksiana Lamb.), and lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta Dougl. ex. Loud.) — to different durations of experimental warming (16 °C day to –2 °C night with a 10 h photoperiod, except for night temperatures during November warming (+2 °C)). Seedlings showed increased responses to warming from November to March, while the capacity to regain the cold hardiness lost to warming decreased during the same period. This suggests an increasing vulnerability of conifers to temperature fluctuations and freezing damage with the progress of chilling and dormancy release from fall to spring. Both lodgepole pine and jack pine initiated spring growth earlier and had greater responses to experimental warming in bud phenology than black spruce and white spruce, suggesting a greater potential risk of frost/freezing damage to pine trees in the spring.
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".