Allometry and plasticity of meristem allocation throughout development in <i>Arabidopsis thaliana</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary The three principal fates of axillary meristems in flowering plants are branching or vegetative growth, reproduction, and inactivity. We examined the relationship between allocation to each of these fates and plant size in five genotypes of Arabidopsis thaliana . Nutrient availability was used to obtain a range of plant size. Allocation to each meristem fate was recorded at weekly intervals throughout development and at final developmental stage. There were significant allometric relationships between meristem allocation and plant size for each meristem fate throughout development in each genotype. Allometry and plasticity tended to be strongest early in development. In addition, although there were differences in allometry between genotypes, meristem allocation through development was generally consistent across genotypes. We interpret the results of this study as an adaptive response to nutrient availability. Increased allocation to growth meristems in high nutrient treatments early in development should maximize both size and the total number of meristems that can be committed to reproduction later in development. This suggests that the pattern of meristem allocation is a component of an adaptive strategy through development in Arabidopsis thaliana .
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".