Control of plant development by limiting factors: A nutritional perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is postulated that limiting nutritional factors play a major role in the regulation of some aspects of plant development, and can provide an alternative to mechanisms based on the concept of hormonal control. This hypothesis is consistent with experimental evidence of the role of water as a limiting factor in (1) seed maturation and viviparous germination, (2) the elongation and phototropism of hypocotyls and coleoptiles, (3) the NO3--induced germination of dormant seeds, and (4) the release of buds from correlative inhibition. Studies on the influence of nutrition on morphogenesis have shown that the relative amounts of nitrogen and carbohydrate can determine the path of bud development as a shoot or rhizome. There is also evidence that either NO3- or sugar can limit lateral root initiation, and it is postulated that they may influence this process by a combination of osmotic and nutritional effects. The close correlation between environmentally induced developmental responses and the associated changes in the water or nutritional status of the responsive tissues, together with increasing evidence of the role of water and nutrients as transmitted signals and as regulators of gene expression, are in good agreement with their postulated role as limiting factors in the regulation of plant development.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".