Does ontogeny matter for the spring temperature requirement for bud burst of two coniferous species in cool temperate forests?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spring leaf phenology is an important event for trees to determine carbon fixation during the growing season. However, less is understood about the intraspecific variation in spring leaf phenology and its relationship with the spring temperature requirements of conifers, which is problematic for accurately predicting the influence of spring climate warming on conifers. I monitored bud burst timing and the degree days required for bud burst for seedlings and large individuals of Abies sachalinensis (fir) and Larix kaempferi (larch) over two seasons in northern Japan. Contrary to my expectation, the degree days required for the bud burst of small individuals were similar to or larger than those of the large individuals for fir and larch. Consequently, the bud burst timing of small individuals was similar to or later than that of large individuals for fir and larch. Even when conifer species are in their early stage, the spring temperature requirement for bud burst is not necessarily less than that for large individuals, which is not the case for many broad-leaved species. These results indicate that for these two coniferous species, ontogenetic differences in temperature requirements are not necessary to be considered for the response of communities to spring climate change.
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) | 0.002 | 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".