Photoprotective mechanisms during leaf ontogeny: cuticular development and anthocyanin deposition in two morphs of <i>Agave striata</i> that differ in leaf coloration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our objectives were to test whether in Agave striata Zucc., a plant with crassulacean acid metabolism (CAM plant), leaf wax development is a delayed response to sunlight exposure following cutin development, and whether energy dissipation shifts from non-photochemical quenching to photochemical quenching during leaf ontogeny. Under field conditions, photosynthesis, cuticular development, and anthocyanin deposition were studied in two morphs of A. striata that differ in leaf coloration (green vs. red). We quantified leaf anthocyanin, wax, and cutin content, and also measured chlorophyll a fluorescence and leaf surface temperature. In addition, using three leaf reflectance indices, we measured relative chlorophyll and anthocyanin content, and also xanthophyll-cycle de-epoxidation state (xanthophyll conversion). Our results revealed that the main components of cuticle (wax and cutin) in leaves of A. striata are deposited during different developmental windows, which are similar to leaves of monocots such as grasses. Exposure to sunlight was found to be the most likely candidate to affect wax and anthocyanin deposition. Chlorophyll a fluorescence data revealed that the sunlight conditions experienced by both morphs predisposed the young leaves of the green morph and old leaves of both morphs to photoinhibition. Our results also revealed that old leaves of the red morph, which contain a reduced level of chlorophyll and anthocyanin, had additional photoprotection via xanthophyll conversion. The results presented here support the photoprotective function of leaf anthocyanins and wax accumulation during leaf ontogeny, indicating that their presence may compensate for the reduced dependence of non-photochemical quenching and the xanthophyll-cycle pigment conversion.
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".