Decline in the strength of genetic controls on aspen environmental responses from seasonal to century‐long phenomena
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Understanding intra‐specific variation in climate sensitivity could improve the prediction of tree responses to climate change. We attempted to identify the degree of genetic control of tree phenology and growth of trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides Mchx.) in a natural stand of this species in northwestern Quebec. We mapped and genotyped 556 aspen trees growing within the plot, using seven nuclear microsatellite loci for clone identification. We selected 13 clones (n of trees per clone >5, in total 350 trees) and evaluated the explanatory power of clone identity in (a) variability of spring leaf phenology and (b) short‐ and long‐term growth responses. The clone's identity explained 43% of the variability in spring leaf phenology, between 18% and 20% of variability in response to monthly climate variables significantly affecting growth, between 8% and 26% of growth response to insect outbreaks, and 12% in the long‐term growth rates. Strong clonal control of aspen phenology and moderate control of growth responses to monthly weather do not result in an equally large impact on long‐term growth rates. The result suggests an important role of environmental extremes and within community interactions as factors averaging aspen growth performance at the stand level.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".