MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986355164 · doi:10.1086/669912

Ultrastructure and Carbon Isotope Ratios of Leaves in C<sub>4</sub> Species of <i>Rhynchospora</i> (Cyperaceae) That Differ in the Location of Kranz Cells

2013· article· en· W1986355164 on OpenAlexaff
Osamu Ueno

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Plant Sciences · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotany, Ecology, and Taxonomy Studies
Canadian institutionsNutrasource
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyCyperaceaeChloroplastHerbariumUltrastructureBotanyGenusThylakoidPoaceaeBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The genus Rhynchospora in the Cyperaceae includes both C3 and C4 species. The C4 species shows two distinct Kranz anatomies: the rhynchosporoid and the fimbristyloid–chlorocyperoid intermediate. This study reports the use of herbarium specimens to obtain the leaf ultrastructure in eight Rhynchospora C4 species in relation to their C4 biochemical subtypes, together with carbon isotope ratios. Despite the use of dried materials, electron microscopic observation revealed the structures of chloroplasts and cell walls. In C4 species with the fimbristyloid–chlorocyperoid intermediate anatomy, Kranz cell chloroplasts had reduced grana and convoluted thylakoids, and suberized lamellae occurred in the mestome sheath cell walls. In C4 species with the rhynchosporoid anatomy, the Kranz cell chloroplasts also had reduced grana and convoluted thylakoids but with less convolution; suberized lamellae occurred in the Kranz cell walls. These data show that the Rhynchospora C4 species have ultrastructural features present in the NADP–malic enzyme–type C4 sedges. The Kranz species had δ13C values typical of C4 plants, as expected, and the values did not differ significantly between the two Kranz anatomies. This study demonstrates that dried herbarium specimens can be used for ultrastructural observation of C4 leaves and provide valuable information for understanding of the photosynthetic diversity.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.372
Threshold uncertainty score0.129

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.182 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations7
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Plant SciencesSame topicBotany, Ecology, and Taxonomy StudiesFrench-language works237,207