The Plant Ionome Revisited by the Nutrient Balance Concept
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tissue analysis is commonly used in ecology and agronomy to portray plant nutrient signatures. Nutrient concentration data, or ionomes, belongs to the compositional data class, i.e., multivariate data that are proportions of some whole, hence carrying important numerical properties. Statistics computed across raw or ordinary log-transformed nutrient data are intrinsically biased, hence possibly leading to wrong inferences. Our objective was to present a sound and robust approach based on a novel nutrient balance concept to classify plant ionomes. We analyzed leaf N, P, K, Ca, and Mg of two wild and six domesticated fruit species from Canada, Brazil, and New Zealand sampled during reproductive stages. Nutrient concentrations were (1) analyzed without transformation, (2) ordinary log-transformed as commonly but incorrectly applied in practice, (3) additive log-ratio (alr) transformed as surrogate to stoichiometric rules, and (4) converted to isometric log-ratios (ilr) arranged as sound nutrient balance variables. Raw concentration and ordinary log transformation both led to biased multivariate analysis due to redundancy between interacting nutrients. The alr- and ilr-transformed data provided unbiased discriminant analyses of plant ionomes, where wild and domesticated species formed distinct groups and the ionomes of species and cultivars were differentiated without numerical bias. The ilr nutrient balance concept is preferable to alr, because the ilr technique projects the most important interactions between nutrients into a convenient Euclidean space. This novel numerical approach allows rectifying historical biases and supervising phenotypic plasticity in plant nutrition studies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".