Light quality (red:far-red ratio): does it affect photosynthetic activity, net CO<sub>2</sub>assimilation, and morphology of young white clover leaves?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We assessed the effects of red:far-red (R:FR) ratio on net CO2assimilation, photosynthetic activity, and morphology of young white clover leaves developed under a simulated canopy light environment. Isolated cuttings of Trifolium repens L. were grown in controlled conditions under two irradiances in combination with two R:FR ratios. We used far-red light emitting diodes to reduce the R:FR ratio on leaves that were successively developing on the main stolon and were subject to strong competition for light within a sward. A leaf that developed under a low R:FR ratio had a lower chlorophyll content than the controls. However, this change had no consequences on the net CO2assimilation rate and on the biomass allocated to shoots. The low R:FR ratio modified the leaf morphology by increasing the leaf area. A leaf that developed in lower irradiance had a lower net CO2assimilation rate and a greater leaf area and petiole length than leaves that developed in higher irradiance. Therefore, irradiance was the main factor limiting the leaf CO2assimilation under a canopy. Capture of light by clover leaves was improved by FR light only via modifications of leaf morphology, because there were no significant effects of FR light on photosynthesis.
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".