The onset of xylogenesis in Smith fir is not related to outer bark thickness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PREMISE: The resumption of stem growth varies across the ontogenetic development of trees. Compared with younger trees, older ones have thicker outer bark with a temperature-insulating effect that could potentially prevent the stem from warming in the spring. However, the question of whether xylogenesis in old trees is influenced by the thick bark still remains unresolved. METHODS: We investigated the onset of xylogenesis across the ontogenetic development of Smith fir (Abies georgei var. smithii) trees in the Sygera Mountains, southeastern Tibetan Plateau. The outer bark of older trees was also removed. Xylogenesis was monitored in microcores we collected every 3 days during May and June in 2017. RESULTS: Xylogenesis began in late May in young (<50 yr) and mature (50-100 yr) trees, 1 week earlier than in adult (>100-150 yr) and old (>150-200 yr) trees. Older (>200 yr) trees had the latest onset of xylogenesis, 2 weeks after young trees. The resumption of xylogenesis was similar between the control and bark-removed trees. CONCLUSIONS: Growth resumption was delayed in older and bigger trees. Outer bark did not affect the onset of xylogenesis, which indicated that the delayed resumption of growth during the lifespan of trees could be more related to endogenous factors than to an insulating effect of the thick bark of older individuals.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".