Abstract
Objective. To describe reproductive phenological stages, since the formation of flower buds, flowering, fruiting, up to the formation of the ripe fruit and foliation of 21 Couepia polyandra trees; and correlation of allometric data of tree height, diameter at breast height (DBH) and crown diameter, as well as the correlation of precipitation with reproductive phenology data.Methodology. The description of the reproductive phenology (foliage, formation of flower buds, flowers, fruits) was done by direct monthly observation with a digital camera (Canon SX60HS, 65). The correlation among precipitation, allometry, and types of soils where the trees grow was calculated by recording data from each tree by measuring height, diameter at breast height (DBH) and foliage.Results. The highest tree was 21.0 m; the widest DBH measured 68 cm; and the greater crown diameter was 34.45 m; the overall averages were 10.38 m, 33.17 cm and 9.37 m, respectively. A significant correlation was found between height and DBH (r0.91, p0.05); the correlations for the variables Height-Crown and DBH-Crown were not significant (p0.05).Conclusions. Water as a factor is responsible for the formation of inflorescence and fruit; determining that these phenological events are dependent variables with precipitation, highlighting a mean positive relation with the growth of flowers.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 10
Claim · model-written summary
Maximum tree height was 21.0 m.
- Taxon
- Couepia polyandra
Couepia polyandrat0 - Outcome
- highest treee0
- Value
- 21.0 me0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The highest tree was 21.0 m”
t0“Couepia polyandra”
Claim · model-written summary
Maximum DBH was 68 cm.
- Taxon
- Couepia polyandraCouepia polyandrat0
- Outcome
- widest DBHe0
- Value
- 68 cme0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the widest DBH measured 68 cm”
t0“Couepia polyandra”
Claim · model-written summary
Maximum crown diameter was 34.45 m.
- Taxon
- Couepia polyandraCouepia polyandrat0
- Outcome
- greater crown diametere0
- Value
- 34.45 me0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the greater crown diameter was 34.45 m”
t0“Couepia polyandra”
Claim · model-written summary
Mean tree height was 10.38 m.
- Taxon
- Couepia polyandraCouepia polyandrat0
- Outcome
- treee1
- Value
- 10.38 me0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the overall averages were 10.38 m, 33.17 cm and 9.37 m, respectively.”
e1“The highest tree was 21.0 m; the widest DBH measured 68 cm; and the greater crown diameter was 34.45 m”
t0“Couepia polyandra”
Claim · model-written summary
Mean DBH was 33.17 cm.
- Taxon
- Couepia polyandraCouepia polyandrat0
- Outcome
- DBHe1
- Value
- 33.17 cme0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the overall averages were 10.38 m, 33.17 cm and 9.37 m, respectively.”
e1“the widest DBH measured 68 cm”
t0“Couepia polyandra”
Claim · model-written summary
Mean crown diameter was 9.37 m.
- Taxon
- Couepia polyandraCouepia polyandrat0
- Outcome
- crown diametere1
- Value
- 9.37 me0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the overall averages were 10.38 m, 33.17 cm and 9.37 m, respectively.”
e1“crown diameter was 34.45 m”
t0“Couepia polyandra”
Claim · model-written summary
Height and DBH correlated significantly.
- Taxon
- Couepia polyandraCouepia polyandrat0
- Outcome
- correlatione0
- Value
- r0.91e0
- Comparator
- DBHe0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“A significant correlation was found between height and DBH (r0.91, p0.05)”
t0“Couepia polyandra”
Claim · model-written summary
Height and crown diameter correlation was not significant.
- Taxon
- Couepia polyandraCouepia polyandrat0
- Outcome
- Height-Crowne0
- Comparator
- Crowne0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“correlations for the variables Height-Crown and DBH-Crown were not significant (p0.05)”
t0“Couepia polyandra”
Claim · model-written summary
DBH and crown diameter correlation was not significant.
- Taxon
- Couepia polyandraCouepia polyandrat0
- Outcome
- DBH-Crowne0
- Comparator
- Crowne0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“correlations for the variables Height-Crown and DBH-Crown were not significant (p0.05)”
t0“Couepia polyandra”
Claim · model-written summary
Authors attributed inflorescence and fruit formation to water availability and reported a positive relation between precipitation and flower growth.
- Taxon
- Couepia polyandraCouepia polyandrat0
- Organ / stage
- flowerse0
- Treatment
- precipitatione0
- Outcome
- growth of flowerse0
- Direction
- positivee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Water as a factor is responsible for the formation of inflorescence and fruit; determining that these phenological events are dependent variables with precipitation, highlighting a mean positive relation with the growth of flowers.”
t0“Couepia polyandra”