MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1968504800 · doi:10.1139/b02-104

Morphogenesis of stem gall tissues induced by larvae of two cecidomyiid species (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae) on<i>Suaeda monoica</i>(Chenopodiaceae)

2002· article· en· W1968504800 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Netta Dorchin, Amnon Freidberg, Roni Aloni

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Botany · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicHorticultural and Viticultural Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGallBiologyPhloemBotanyCecidomyiidaeXylemMorphogenesisHalophyteMetamorphosisLarvaVascular bundleParenchymaEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Izeniola obesula Dorchin and Stefaniola defoliata Dorchin (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae: Lasiopterini) are monophagous gall midges each inducing a unique kind of gall on stems of the salt marsh plant Suaeda monoica Gmelin (Chenopodiaceae). The morphogenesis of these two types of galls was studied in relation to the life history of the midges as observed both in the field and the laboratory. Izeniola obesula larvae penetrate the pith parenchyma through the growing shoot apex, causing intensive cell proliferation and inducing differentiation of novel vascular tissues and a sclerenchyma sheath around their chambers. Vascular differentiation in this gall originates from the larval chamber, a phenomenon attributed to local stimulation by the larva. It is suggested that the sclerenchyma layer in these galls is also induced by insect activity. Stefaniola defoliata larvae penetrate the stem laterally and reside inside the primary phloem, causing proliferation of phloem parenchyma, and are later encapsulated by secondary xylem tissue. Both galls are associated with a symbiotic fungus that grows along the inner walls of the larval chambers. The possible hormonal mechanisms controlling morphogenesis of the galls are discussed.Key words: gall morphogenesis, phytohormones, sclerenchyma, vascular differentiation.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.304
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.188 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations25
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of BotanySame topicHorticultural and Viticultural ResearchFrench-language works237,207