Growth of tree diameter and stem taper as affected by reduced leaf area on selected branch whorls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Leaf area on branches is linked to the stem through hydraulic and physiological functions. We investigated whether this relationship extends to growth responses by examining coordinated growth between leaf area on selected branches in the crown and growth in form and taper of the main stem. The growth impact of leaf area carried on individual branch whorls on the stem profile and internodes was tested using a series of defoliation and shade treatments. The data were analyzed using a linear mixed-effects model relating relative diameter to the relative height of the measured internodes. Defoliation and shade treatments on selected branches significantly affected the stem profile compared with untreated trees. The effect of reduced leaf area due to defoliation and shading of branch whorls was localized to internodes immediately below or above treated whorls. The stem profile showed curvature in the regions affected by reduced leaf area. These findings demonstrate that branch and stem growth is sensitive to minor changes in leaf area. The results emphasize the localized contribution of branches to stem growth.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".