Phenology, dichogamy, and floral synchronization in a northern red oak (<i>Quercus rubra</i>) seed orchard
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We developed a novel scoring system to assess spring phenology in a northern red oak (Quercus rubra L.) clonal seed orchard. The system was used to score from 304 to 364 ramets for three reproductive seasons and to place clones into early, intermediate, and late phenology classes. Although the absolute number of clones in each phenological class changed from year to year, the overall order of clonal flowering was highly stable (rs = 0.67, p < 0.001). Early-flowering clones flowered significantly longer than later flowering clones in all 3 years. Dichogamy was present in the orchard, with male flowers of a clone emerging from 1.4 to 3.0 d sooner than its female flowers. Mean dichogamy values for individual clones ranged from 0.0 to 4.9 (± 1.3) d. Year strongly influenced a clone’s dichogamy value (F = 6.0, p = 0.004), whereas genotype had no influence. The mean overall phenological synchronicity for the 3 years of observations was 0.30 ± 0.01 or about 30% overlap between the time when females were receptive and males were shedding pollen. This study represents the first effort to quantify phenology in an artificial population of northern red oak, and it provides a snapshot of the current relationship between temperature, phenology, and floral synchronization.
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".