Is Cork Growth a Reliable Proxy for Stem Diameter Growth in Cork Oak (Quercus suber L.)? Implications for Forest Management under Climate Change in Mediterranean Regions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cork-ring widths have been extensively used in dendroecological studies assessing the relationship between cork growth patterns and climate (precipitation and temperature). Generally, cork growth is assumed as a proxy for stem diameter growth to address cork oak (Quercus suber L.) growth sensitivity to climate and cork yield modeling. Cork growth represents a large part of stem radial increment in this species due to the enhanced activity of phellogen when compared to the cambium activity; thus, similar inter-annual variations of cork-ring widths and tree diameter growth might be expected. However, so far, the influence of rainfall and temperature on stem diameter growth has scarcely been addressed; moreover, it is still not clear whether tree size relates, and in what way, to the variations in radial growth of cork and stem diameter and whether these reflect (proportional) quantitative variations in stem basal area growth. In this study, we computed the annual growth of cork and of stem diameter at breast-height in data series of 47 trees, from 2000 to 2012, corresponding to a full cork production cycle. Results showed a tight link between cork-ring width and stem diameter growth indices. However, while cork growth strongly correlated with climate conditions in autumn–winter prior to the growing season, stem diameter growth correlated with climate conditions of the current growing season, and, more importantly, it was tree size-related. The extrapolation from cork-ring increments to stem basal area growth is likely to progressively underestimate tree growth and biomass increment in larger cork oaks and to further bias it due to climate change effects in the Mediterranean region.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".