Effects of artificial ultraviolet‐B radiation on growth and fatty acid composition of duckweed (<i>Lemna minor</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary 1. Duckweed (Lemna minor), collected either in summer or early fall was exposed under laboratory conditions to control (photosynthetically active and UV‐A radiation) or experimental (control plus UV‐B radiation) conditions. 2. Growth and survival were determined by counting the number of green, and brown/white fronds following 1–5 or 11 days of irradiation. Growth of duckweed was impaired by exposure to UV‐B radiation in the fall experiment but not in the summer. 3. Fatty acid compositions were analysed following 5 or 11 days of irradiation and a recovery period of 0, 5, 29 or 40 h. Concentrations of the major fatty acids, palmitic, linoleic (LA) and α‐linolenic (ALA) acids were similar in the summer and fall duckweed collections, but the summer samples had higher concentrations of the desaturation products of LA and ALA. 4. UV‐B exposure had small, but significant, and contrasting effects on duckweed fatty acid concentrations. In the summer experiment, duckweed exposed to UV‐B had slightly lower concentrations of major fatty acids than control duckweed, while the reverse was true in the fall experiments. 5. These minor effects of UV‐B on concentrations of LA and ALA would be unlikely to have a major impact on the supply of these essential fatty acids from duckweed to freshwater food webs.
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".