Variation in morphology, plant habit, proanthocyanidins, and flavonoids within a <i>Lottus</i> germplasm collection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lotus species collec ted from a range of geographical locations were evaluated for relationships between plant habit and size, leaf proanthocyanidin (PA) content, flower colour, stem colour, leaf colour, trichome density, and geographic origin. No relationships occurred between leaf PA concentration and morphological trait or collection site. Trichome coverage was moderately correlated with plant size (r = -0.70). Several accessions, e.g., L. angustissimus L. and L. castellanis Boiss. & Reut., consisted of small, trichome-covered plants distinct from the large, glabrous plants typical of the model species L. corniculatus var. japonicus ecotype Gifu B129. These two morphology types were also represented among the tan mutants of Gifu B129. Due to the importance of trichomes and PA in plant defence, PA composition was compared between L. angustissimusand tan1 (both representing the small trichome-covered phenotype) and ecotype Gifu B129 and tan2 (both representing the large, glabrous phenotype). Both the tan1 and tan2 mutants accumulated substantial amounts of leaf PA similar in size to the small oligomers recovered from leaves of L. angustissimus. PA polymers were undetectable in Gifu B129 leaves, while floral PA extracts of this ecotype included a much larger PA polymer. Flavonoid composition in leaves of tan1 and L. angustissimus was complex, and differed from the simple profile in Gifu B129 leaves. Key words: Lotus, proanthocyanidin, flavonoids, trichomes, morphology, plant habit, variability
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".