Climatic signal in a radial growth of Canadian and Maximovich poplars in south-western Poland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main goal set by researchers in this article was to gather knowledge on the structure of the basic biometric features of tree-rings of two species of poplars, belonging to different sections of Aegeiros – Populus xcanadensis and Tacamahaca – Populus maximowiczii, and to define and understand the correlation between weather and annual increment. A supplementary objective of the article was to determine pointer years of species found in individual populations. Our research used the standard methodology applied in dendroclimatology. In the analysis of correlation of the tree species studied, stronger statistically significant relationships were obtained in terms of precipitation-increment compared to temperature-increment. The annual increment in the Canadian poplar was enhanced by wet autumns and winters, especially by the rainfall in Oct and Dec in the previous year, as well as in Apr of this year. The tested Maximovich's poplars tested preferred rainfall during spring going into summer, especially in June of this year. Seven specific pointer years were determined for the Canadian poplar, comprising 4 positive (1987, 2008, 2010, 2012) and 3 negative years (2000, 2011, 2014). For P. maximowiczii, 11 pointer years were determined, i.e. 5 positive years (1987, 1991, 1999, 2009, 2012) and 6 negative (1984, 2000, 2002, 2010, 2013, 2015). In the pointer years, monthly sums of atmospheric precipitation and the average monthly air temperatures differed from the multi-year period. In the process of forming the secondary growth of the wood of the studied poplar species, the predominant role was played by atmospheric precipitation.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".