Variation in branch length in<i>Fagopyrum esculentum</i>in response to density and emergence date: No evidence for true plasticity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plasticity is an important attribute that enables plants to maintain fitness in heterogeneous environments. The objective of this study was to investigate plasticity in branch length in Fagopyrum esculentum Moench. Seeds of the species were sown under two contrasting conditions through the manipulation of planting density (inter-planting distances at 20, 15, 10, and 5 cm) and sowing date (25 July, 1 August, 5 August, and 15 August). Allometric analysis of the relationships between branch length and total biomass showed a significant (p < 0.05) departure from isometry. This indicates that branch length increased linearly as a function of size. However, branch length was smaller in the group of plants sown at higher densities and at late sowing dates. True plasticity, which would have been indicated by significant differences in allometric exponents within treatments, was not observed in this study. Our results suggest that the differences observed in branch length were due to the direct effect of size rather than as a result of true plastic investment in branches.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".