Variations in growth and architecture in the range limit of <i>Salix humboldtiana</i>, the willow native to South America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The conditions faced by edge populations of a tree species may affect the architecture of individual trees. The latitudinally broad range of Salix humboldtiana Willd. encompasses tropical to cold-temperate climatic regions, with its southernmost population in central Patagonia. We expected S. humboldtiana trees from the southern-edge population to develop smaller shoots and a lower level of axis differentiation than trees of this species from a more northern population, and we expected edge trees to outperform non-edge trees when growing in a common garden at an intermediate latitude. For juvenile individuals of S. humboldtiana from edge and non-edge natural populations, the trunk diameter, height, branching angle, as well as the length, number of nodes, diameter, leaf area, and specific leaf area of the main branch and the trunk annual shoots were measured. The size and extension rates of shoots developed by trees of both origins in a common garden were also evaluated. In natural populations, the shoot leaf area and the specific leaf area were higher for the edge population than for the non-edge population. In a common garden, the shoot extension period and the length were higher for non-edge plants than for edge plants. The growth-period differences between populations in a common garden may support the hypothesis of stress adaptation in the southernmost S. humboldtiana trees.
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) | 0.001 | 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".