Comparative leaf development of aerial and aquatic growth forms of <i>Myriophyllum aquaticum</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Myriophyllum aquaticum (Vell.) Verdc. produces two morphologically different forms of leaves based on whether they are aerial or aquatic. The objective of this study was to determine whether there are any similarities or differences between these two growth forms during their early stages of development. A comparative developmental study of aerial and aquatic growth forms of M. aquaticum was conducted from a qualitative and quantitative perspective using a scanning electron microscope. The pattern of leaf and lobe initiation such as their origin and shape were similar in both growth forms until the fourth plastochron (stage P4). Differences between the two growth forms became evident from stage P5 onward, where a larger shoot apical meristem (SAM), elongated epidermal cells, shorter and slightly more numerous lobes, as well as the presence of appendage-like structures characterized aquatic growth forms. On the other hand, aerial growth forms had smaller SAM, bulb-like epidermal cells, and longer and slightly less numerous leaf lobes. Significant differences between growth forms were noted for parameters such as volume of SAM, length of terminal, first, and middle lobes, as well as the length from first to last lobes. The volume of the SAM of aquatic shoot tips was always greater than aerial forms. On the other hand, lobes of aerial forms were always longer than the aquatic counterpart during early stages of development. This study on the development of M. aquaticum shows that the aerial and aquatic growth forms diverge from their early stages of development.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 teacher head, 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".