Mise en évidence d'une régulation de l'efflux de NO<sub>3</sub><sup></sup> racinaire par la partie aérienne chez quatre cultivars de blé tendre (<i>Triticum aestivum</i> L.), Sais, Jouda, Marchouch et Khair : influence de la lumière
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nitrate exsorption in relation to light was studied in four wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cultivars, Sais, Jouda, Marchouch, and Khair, using four experimental treatments: intact plants, excised roots, defoliated plants, and decapitated plants. Data show that nitrate exsorption was dramatically reduced from excised roots compared to controls. This efflux reduction was also observed from the roots of decapitated plants. On the contrary, defoliation triggered a significant increase in the quantity of exsorbed NO3, as compared to intact plants. This increased efflux was much more dramatic when defoliated plants were exposed to darkness; nitrate exsorption from roots was then 8 to 10 times larger than from excised roots. In 21-day-old wheat plantlets, the aboveground parts are the main site for efflux regulation at the root level. Both leaves and apex are the aboveground organs responsible for this regulation. Indeed, the efflux was reduced by the leaves and, on the contrary, stimulated by the apex. Light was involved in controlling this efflux. This control involves a flow, between the aboveground parts and the roots, of two types of factors, one of which (or both) being sensitive to light. The first factor is of apical origin, whereas the second is of foliar origin. However, the chemical nature of these two types of photosensitive factors involved in NO3 ions efflux regulation remains to be determined.Key words: nitrate, efflux, light, darkness, common wheat.[Journal translation]
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".