Photoperiod, light quality, and irradiance effects on flowering in the alpine and prairie ecotypes of <i>Stellaria longipes</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plants growing in vegetative shade are subjected to reductions in both red to far-red (R/FR) light ratio and in irradiance levels of photosynthetically active radiation (PAR). In this report we have attempted to uncouple the reduced R/FR ratio- and low PAR-mediated effects of shade on flowering in the ramets of Stellaria longipes Goldie s.l. (Caryophyllaceae) ecotypes collected from alpine “sun” and lower elevation prairie “shade” habitats. Both ecotypes were also tested for their flowering response (defined as the number of open flowers per ramet) to daylength. The alpine ecotype plants can best be classified as day-neutral, whereas prairie ecotype plants require long-days (LD). Under a low PAR of 115 μmol m –2 ·s –1 given under LD conditions at a reduced (0.7) R/FR ratio, alpine ecotype plants flowered significantly later relative to plants grown under the low PAR at a normal (1.22) R/FR ratio. In contrast, plants of the prairie ecotype flowered earlier under the reduced R/FR ratio combined with the same low PAR. Flower number per ramet differed significantly between the two ecotypes, with alpine ecotype plants developing fewer flowers under a low PAR (109 μmol m –2 ·s –1 irradiance) relative to a high PAR of 611 μmol m –2 ·s –1 (both given at a normal R/FR ratio). The prairie ecotype plants responded differently and had similar flower numbers under both low and high PARs at the normal (1.22) R/FR ratio. However, growing the prairie ecotype plants under a reduced R/FR ratio at a low PAR showed a significant increase in number of flowers. In contrast, plants grown under high (2.7) and normal (1.9) R/FR ratios combined with low PAR produced many more flowers than the alpine ecotype. Thus, the two components of shade, reduced R/FR ratio and low PAR can cause distinctly different flowering responses in sun and shade plants of S. longipes.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".