Phenological patterns of<i>Quercus ilex, Phillyrea latifolia</i>, and<i>Arbutus unedo</i>growing under a field experimental drought
Bibliographic record
Abstract
:A holm oak forest located in the Prades Mountains (northeast of Spain) was subjected to an experimental drought to determine its phenological responses. Soil water availability was reduced by 15% by plastic strips and funnels that partially excluded rain throughfall and by ditch exclusion of water runoff. We monitored eight phenological events: leaf shedding, leaf flushing, flower bud formation, flowering, flower senescence, fruit growth, fruit maturation, and fruit abscission in the three dominant species, Quercus ilex, Phillyrea latifolia, and Arbutus unedo once a week from winter 1999 to winter 2001. We also collected litterfall in circular baskets randomly distributed on the ground every 15 d from winter 1999 to winter 2001 and every 2 months from winter 2001 to winter 2003. Arbutus unedo showed a higher proportion of individuals flowering and fruiting than Q. ilex and P. latifolia. Arbutus unedo was also the most sensitive species to water availability since drought treatment delayed its phenophases, whereas this treatment did not significantly affect the timing of the other two species’ phenophases. The flower and fruit production was also greater in A. unedo than in the two other species, but inter-annual variability was high, and no significant drought effect was found in any of the three species. Stem litterfall was greater in drought plots than in control plots during the overall studied period. In a drier environment, as predicted for Mediterranean areas in the near future by global circulation models, drought-resistant species such as P. latifolia could present greater ability to produce reproductive structures than less resistant species such as Q. ilex or A. unedo. This different response among species could produce changes in seedling recruitment and resprouting ability and, in the longer term, in species distribution.
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 | 0.001 | 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".