Allometry of Sapwood Depth in Five Boreal Trees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper analyzes sapwood variability and allometry within individuals of Populus tremuloides, Pinus contorta, Pinus banksiana, Picea mariana, and Picea glauca. Outside bark diameter at breast height (DBH) and sapwood depth (sd) in four cardinal directions were measured in individuals in stands in Alberta and Saskatchewan, Canada. The microscopical analysis of wood anatomy was used to measure sd, and the error associated with the measures was observed. Sapwood allometry analyses examined the influence of DBH on sd and on sapwood area (SA). All species were observed to have varying sapwood depths around the trunk with statistical analyses showing that Pinus banksiana has a well defined preference to grow thicker in the North-East side. The largest sd values were observed for the Populus tremuloides set. Unlike Populus tremuloides and Picea glauca, for the species Pinus contorta, Pinus banksiana, and Picea mariana, incremental growth in DBH does not directly drive sapwood growth in any direction. For these three species, SA increases only because of increases in DBH as sd remains nearly constant. These results show that sapwood depth and sapwood area seem to behave differently in each studied species and are not always proportional to the tree size as is normally assumed.
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) | 0.000 | 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".