Is nectar reabsorption restricted by the stalk cells of floral and extrafloral nectary trichomes?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reabsorption is a phase of nectar dynamics that occurs concurrently with secretion; it has been described in floral nectaries that exude nectar through stomata or unicellular trichomes, but has not yet been recorded in extrafloral glands. Apparently, nectar reabsorption does not occur in multicellular secretory trichomes (MST) due to the presence of lipophilic impregnations - which resemble Casparian strips - in the anticlinal walls of the stalk cells. It has been assumed that these impregnations restrict solute movement within MST to occur unidirectionally and exclusively by the symplast, thereby preventing nectar reflux toward the underlying nectary tissues. We hypothesised that reabsorption is absent in nectaries possessing MST. The fluorochrome lucifer yellow (LYCH) was applied to standing nectar of two floral and extrafloral glands of distantly related species, and then emission spectra from nectary sections were systematically analysed using confocal microscopy. Passive uptake of LYCH via the stalk cells to the nectary tissues occurred in all MST examined. Moreover, we present evidence of nectar reabsorption in extrafloral nectaries, demonstrating that LYCH passed the stalk cells of MST, although it did not reach the deepest nectary tissues. Identical (control) experiments performed with neutral red (NR) demonstrated no uptake of this stain by actively secreting MST, whereas diffusion of NR did occur in plasmolysed MST of floral nectaries at the post-secretory phase, indicating that nectar reabsorption by MST is governed by stalk cell physiology. Interestingly, non-secretory trichomes failed to reabsorb nectar. The role of various nectary components is discussed in relation to the control of nectar reabsorption by secretory trichomes.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".