Root environmental effects on phi thickening production and root morphology in three gymnosperms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Phi thickenings, lignified thickenings found on the radial and tangential walls of root cortical cells, are present in a restricted number of angiosperms and gymnosperms. To test whether their occurrence is constitutive or environmentally induced, seedlings of Cryptomeria japonica (L.f.) D. Don (Cupressaceae, phi thickenings present), and Pinus aristata Engel. and Pinus rigida Mill. (Pinaceae, phi thickenings absent) were grown under conditions of waterlogging and soil compaction. After 4 months, five morphological characters and the presence and cross-sectional area of phi thickenings were measured. All measured aspects of seedling morphology were affected by the treatments, and the two treatment factors (waterlogging and compaction) interacted significantly with one another. Taproots were significantly shorter, lateral roots were shorter and fewer in number, and root:shoot ratios were smaller in waterlogged and compacted soil in all three species. Despite these morphological effects, phi thickening presence or absence did not vary: phi thickenings were always found in C. japonica and never in the two Pinus species. However, the phi ratio (the area occupied by phi thickenings relative to the total root area) decreased significantly with both waterlogging and compaction even though it remained unchanged with root maturity. Thus, although root morphology and phi thickening anatomy were significantly affected by the environment, the presence of phi thickenings was not, and is evidently a constitutive anatomical feature in the species examined.Key words: phi thickenings, root anatomy, Cryptomeria, Pinus, waterlogging, soil compaction.
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".