Suboptimal temperature favors reserve formation in biennial carrot (<i>Daucus carota</i>) plants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In response to suboptimal temperatures, temperate annual plants often increase root:shoot ratios, build-up carbohydrates and display typical morphological and anatomical changes. We know less about the responses of biennials such as carrot. As a model plant, carrot has the additional feature of two functionally and morphologically distinct root parts: the taproot, which stores carbohydrate and other compounds, and the fibrous root system involved in acquisition of water and nutrients. Here, we analyze the effects of temperature (12 vs 25°C) on growth, carbohydrate accumulation and whole-plant morphology in two carrot cultivars. Our working hypothesis is that suboptimal temperature favors active formation of reserve structures, rather than passive accumulation of storage carbohydrates. In comparison with plants grown at 25°C, plants grown at 12°C had: (1) higher fibrous root:shoot ratio (13%) , (2) thicker (10-15%) and smaller (up to two- to three-fold) leaves, (3) lower leaf cuticular permeance (two- to four-fold), (4) higher taproot:shoot ratio (two-fold), (5) higher phloem:xylem ratios in taproot (two- to six-fold), (6) unchanged percentage dry matter content (%DMC) in leaves, petioles or fibrous roots and (7) higher %DMC in taproot (20%). However, %DMC of individual taproot tissues (phloem and xylem) was unaffected by temperatures and was consistently higher in the phloem (up to 30%). Therefore, the higher %DMC of whole taproots at 12°C was attributed solely to the increased development of phloem tissue. Carrot, therefore, shares many of the most conspicuous elements of temperate plant responses to low temperatures. Consistently with our hypothesis, however, carrots grown at suboptimal temperature promoted reserve structures, rather than the increase in carbohydrate concentration typical of most temperate annual species and woody perennials.
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".