Maturation Stress and Wood Properties of Poplar (Populus × euramericana cv. ‘Zhonglin46’) Tension Wood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding the maturation stress and wood properties of poplar tension wood is critical for improving lumber yields and utilization ratio. In this study, the released longitudinal maturation strains (RLMS), anatomical features, physical and mechanical properties, and nano-mechanical properties of the cell wall were analyzed at different peripheral positions and heights in nine artificially inclined, 12-year-old poplar (Populus × euramericana cv. ‘Zhonglin46’) trees. The correlations between the RLMS and the wood properties were determined. The results showed that there were mixed effects of inclination on wood quality and properties. The upper sides of inclined stems had higher RLMS, proportion of G-layer, bending modulus of elasticity, and indentation modulus of the cell wall but a lower microfibril angle than the lower sides. At heights between 0.7 m and 2.2 m, only the double-wall thickness increased with height; the RLMS and other wood properties such as fiber length and basic density fluctuated or changed little with height. The RLMS were good indicators of wood properties in the tension wood area and at heights between 0.7 m and 1.5 m. The results of this study present opportunities to better understand the interactions and effects of these two phenomena, which both occur quite frequently in poplar stands and can influence the wood quality of valuable assortments.
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 | 0.000 | 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".