MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7155656139

Comparing juvenile physiology and morphology of two high-elevation pines, Pinus albicaulis and Pinus balfouriana

2023· dissertation· en· W7155656139 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Katherine Elizabeth Sparks

Bibliographic record

VenueMontana State University ScholarWorks (Montana State University) · 2023
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEndangered speciesThreatened speciesAbiotic componentDisjunctKeystone speciesPine barrensDendroctonusJuvenile
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis, PIAL) and foxtail pine (P. balfouriana, PIBA) are slow-growing, high-elevation, five needled ("high five") white pines and are foundation and keystone species in alpine and subalpine environments, providing essential resources and habitat for many species including the Clark's nutcracker and grizzly bears. In recent years, PIAL has experienced significant decline due to an amalgamation of climate change, white pine blister rust, and mountain pine beetle. As a result, PIAL is listed as endangered under the Canadian Species at Risk Act and threatened under the United States Endangered Species Act. Conversely, PIBA has experienced minimal decline. PIBA also exists in two disjunct populations, one in southern California (PIBAS) and one in northern California (PIBA N), resulting in the species being split into two sub-species (P. balfouriana subsp. austrina and balfouriana). Our study compared the physiology and morphology of the two species (PIAL and PIBA) and the two foxtail populations (PIBA N and PIBAS) to better understand how they interact with and respond to abiotic and biotic stressors in their high-elevation environments. We grew four-year-old PIAL and PIBA juveniles in a common greenhouse environment. In total, we measured 159 traits describing their morphology, biomass, stomata, xylem, budburst phenology, physiology, whole plant Volatile Organic Compounds (wpVOCs), phloem volatile resin (PVR) compounds, and Non-Structural Carbohydrates (NSCs). We found that PIAL and PIBA displayed different suites of traits that enable them to persist in their high elevation habitats, characterized by similar abiotic stressors (cold temperatures, high winds, summer drought) and biotic stressors (white pine blister rust, bark beetle). The two foxtail populations were similar for most traits except for wpVOC concentration and composition where PIBAS had significantly higher wpVOC concentration than PIBA N. For most traits, PIAL was most similar to PIBA N and differed the most with PIBAS while PIBA N was the intermediate being more similar to both groups, especially in wpVOC composition and concentration.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.429
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.181 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMontana State University ScholarWorks (Montana State University)Same topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207