Na<sup>+</sup> content of xylem sap is closely related to root biomass in pea (<i>Pisum sativum</i>): Apotential tool for studying root growth under controlled conditions and in the field
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Xylem-mobile Na+ in peas appears to have the attributes of a convenient marker for estimates of root biomass. This study examined the consistency and predictability of biomass-based, root to shoot Na+ delivery rates. In glasshouse experiments, xylem Na+ delivery was studied according to changing exogenous pressure regimes, time of day of xylem sap extraction, plant development, soil Na+ concentration and xylem sap extraction methods. At a given developmental stage, Na+ delivery in relation to root biomass was constant and independent of xylem water flux. This relationship held providing that collections were made for at least 60 min, the nature of xylem sap extraction (natural root pressure, vacuum or external pressure) was the same and Na+ concentration in the nutrient solution was constant and below 2.5 mM. A negative linear relationship was found between-biomass based Na+ delivery and development (degree days after emergence), with declining values likely caused by overestimates of viable root biomass. Likewise, in the field, Na+ delivery rates occurred predictably with soil Na+, as long as soil Na+ was not increased beyond 5-fold that of naturally occurring levels. Field biomass-based Na+ delivery was largely unaffected by changes in development from early flowering to late seed filling. If used within the defined methodological and developmental limits, Na+ delivery can be a valuable time and labour saving tool for calculating numerous root biomass characteristics, particularly in soil substrates that hamper accurate root recovery. Key words: Controlled conditions, field, Na+ uptake, pea, root biomass, xylem delivery
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".