Comparing juvenile physiology and morphology of two high-elevation pines, Pinus albicaulis and Pinus balfouriana
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".