Radial variation of wood anatomical and chemical properties in eight poplar clones
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wood properties are crucial for the development and application of poplar clones. Here, the effects of clone and age on anatomical and chemical properties were analyzed in eight poplar clones (50, Zhonglin46, 108, 36, N179, Danhong, Sangju, and Nanyang) from Henan province, China. The results show that the effects of clone and age are both significant for these wood properties. The eight clones were grouped into three clusters according to their annual ring width, fiber quality, and chemical properties. For some properties, including annual ring width, fiber length, and microfibril angle, all clones displayed the same radial variation trends; however, for other properties, such as holocellulose content, the radial variation trends were different depending on the clones. The culmination of the mean annual increment corresponded to the turning ages of wood properties such as annual ring width in the eight clones, and holocellulose content in the partial clones except for fiber length, microfibril angle, and vessel length. The recommended rotation age of these poplar clones is 8–9 years based on the fiber quality and chemical components. These results indicate strong genetic and age control of the wood properties and highlight the rich source of variation for poplar clone selection.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".