Leaflet Movement of <i>Robinia pseudoacacia</i> in Response to a Changing Light Environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Diurnal and nocturnal leaflet movement of black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia L.) was investigated under three light schemes: 100% natural irradiance, 50% shading, and 90% shading. Changes in leaf mid‐vein angle were described by measurements of two planes: (i) β, the angle formed by the bottom of the petiolule and its relation to the horizontal plane; and (ii) θ, the angle between the petiolule and the main leaflet vein. The two highest light regimens had a significant effect on β. Variation in β tends to make the leaflet more erect, thereby minimizing any negative impact of high irradiance on leaf lamina. Light‐dark rhythms induced variation in θ (termed nyctinastic movement). Nyctinastic movement is important during the low light levels experienced by leaflets in early morning and late afternoon. At low light levels, the leaflet stopped nyctinastic movement and θ was fixed at an angle that may have enabled the leaf lamina to maximize light interception. After the light‐dark cycle was reestablished, nyctinastic movement was restored. Taken together, our results suggest that irradiance induces variation in β leading to diurnal leaflet movement (diaheliotropism), whereas the light‐dark cycle influences θ, which results in nocturnal leaflet movement. Both angles are important for describing patterns of leaf movement in R. pseudocacia.
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".