Wax Layers on<i>Cosmos bipinnatus</i>Petals Contribute Unequally to Total Petal Water Resistance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cuticular waxes coat all primary aboveground plant organs as a crucial adaptation to life on land. Accordingly, the properties of waxes have been studied in much detail, albeit with a strong focus on leaf and fruit waxes. Flowers have life histories and functions largely different from those of other organs, and it remains to be seen whether flower waxes have compositions and physiological properties differing from those on other organs. This work provides a detailed characterization of the petal waxes, using Cosmos bipinnatus as a model, and compares them with leaf and stem waxes. The abaxial petal surface is relatively flat, whereas the adaxial side consists of conical epidermis cells, rendering it approximately 3.8 times larger than the projected petal area. The petal wax was found to contain unusually high concentrations of C(22) and C(24) fatty acids and primary alcohols, much shorter than those in leaf and stem waxes. Detailed analyses revealed distinct differences between waxes on the adaxial and abaxial petal sides and between epicuticular and intracuticular waxes. Transpiration resistances equaled 3 × 10(4) and 1.5 × 10(4) s m(-1) for the adaxial and abaxial surfaces, respectively. Petal surfaces of C. bipinnatus thus impose relatively weak water transport barriers compared with typical leaf cuticles. Approximately two-thirds of the abaxial surface water barrier was found to reside in the epicuticular wax layer of the petal and only one-third in the intracuticular wax. Altogether, the flower waxes of this species had properties greatly differing from those on vegetative organs.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".