Differences in xylogenesis between dominant and suppressed trees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PREMISE OF THE STUDY: Most dendroecological studies focus on dominant trees, but little is known about the growing season of trees belonging to different size classes and their sensitivity to biotic factors. The objective of this study was to compare the dynamics of xylem formation between dominant and suppressed trees of Abies fabri of similar age growing in the Gongga Mountains, southeastern Tibetan Plateau, and to identify the association between xylem growth and climate. METHODS: The timing and duration of xylogenesis in histological sections were investigated weekly during the 2013-2015 growing seasons. KEY RESULTS: Our investigation found that timing and duration of xylogenesis varied with canopy position and its associated tree size. Xylogenesis started 6-14 days earlier, and ended 5-11 days later in dominant trees than in suppressed trees, resulting in a significantly longer growing season. Dominant trees also exhibited higher temperature sensitivity of tracheid production rate than suppressed trees. CONCLUSIONS: The observed differences in xylogenesis among trees suggested that competition affects tree growth by reducing the growing period in suppressed trees. Representative climate-growth relationships should involve trees of all size classes when evaluating the effects of the environment on forest dynamics.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".