Stem sapwood permeability in relation to crown dominance and site quality in self-thinning fire-origin lodgepole pine stands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stem sapwood hydraulic permeability, tree leaf area, sapwood basal area, earlywood to latewood ratio of annual rings, radial variation in hydraulic permeability and stem hydraulic capacity were examined in dominant (D), codominant (CD) and suppressed (SP) lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta Dougl. ex Loud.) trees growing on medium and poor sites. Hydraulic permeability on a sapwood area basis (ks) was lower in suppressed trees (0.71 x 10(-12) m2) compared to dominants (1.97 x 10(-12) m2) and codominants (1.79 x 10(-12) m2), and higher on medium than on poor sites. The leaf/sapwood area ratio (S) varied with crown dominance position (D > CD > SP) but not by site type. Leaf specific conductivity (kL) did not vary between crown classes or site types. The relationship between leaf area and stem hydraulic supply capacity (Q*) was strong, but differed among crown classes. Dominant trees and trees from the medium sites had a greater proportion of earlywood in outer rings of sapwood than suppressed trees. Sapwood permeability declined from the cambium to the sapwood-heartwood boundary in all samples, but the decline was more gradual in dominant trees compared to codominant and suppressed trees; differences in the radial variation in sapwood permeability may be related to differences in S. Sapwood permeability is positively related to crown dominance, whereas subdominant (CD and SP) trees have greater Q* in relation to leaf area, leading us to propose that this may give subdominant trees a survival advantage, slowing self-thinning.
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".