Quantifying leaf venation patterns: two‐dimensional maps
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The leaf vasculature plays crucial roles in transport and mechanical support. Understanding how vein patterns develop and what underlies pattern variation between species has many implications from both physiological and evolutionary perspectives. We developed a method for extracting spatial vein pattern data from leaf images, such as vein densities and also the sizes and shapes of the vein reticulations. We used this method to quantify leaf venation patterns of the first rosette leaf of Arabidopsis thaliana throughout a series of developmental stages. In particular, we characterized the size and shape of vein network areoles (loops), which enlarge and are split by new veins as a leaf develops. Pattern parameters varied in time and space. In particular, we observed a distal to proximal gradient in loop shape (length/width ratio) which varied over time, and a margin-to-center gradient in loop sizes. Quantitative analyses of vein patterns at the tissue level provide a two-way link between theoretical models of patterning and molecular experimental work to further explore patterning mechanisms during development. Such analyses could also be used to investigate the effect of environmental factors on vein patterns, or to compare venation patterns from different species for evolutionary studies. The method also provides a framework for gathering and overlaying two-dimensional maps of point, line and surface morphological data.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".