MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Light irradiance differentially regulates endogenous levels of cytokinins and auxin in alpine and prairie genotypes of <i>Stellaria longipes</i>

2008· article· en· W2098824912 on OpenAlexafffund
Leonid V. Kurepin, R. J. Neil Emery, C. C. Chinnappa, David M. Reid

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysiologia Plantarum · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLight effects on plants
Canadian institutionsTrent UniversityUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsEcotypeBiologyIrradianceBotanyAbscisic acidShootPhenotypic plasticityAuxinPhotomorphogenesisEcologyArabidopsis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The growth patterns of plants from alpine (sun) and prairie (shade) ecotypes of Stellaria longipes in response to change in light irradiance was investigated and involvement of cytokinins (CKs), auxin (IAA) and abscisic acid (ABA) was studied to examine the mechanism behind phenotypic plasticity of these plants in response to light signalling. Low light irradiance induced shoot growth in plants of both ecotypes, but IAA levels were higher in plants from alpine, but not prairie ecotype. Dynamics of CK profiles in response to changing photosynthetically active radiation were quite different between ecotypes and changes were more pronounced in the plants of alpine ecotype, where opposite patterns in CK accumulation between low and normal light irradiances were observed. The plants of both ecotypes showed similar trends in ABA levels under low light irradiance. Thus, the highly plastic plants of prairie ecotype may have evolved mechanisms to control the growth in response to reduced light irradiance without major alterations in the levels of CKs or IAA. These results demonstrate that within species, plants from open habitats show less growth response to reduced light irradiance than plants from shaded habitats.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.620
Threshold uncertainty score0.317

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.164 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysiologia PlantarumSame topicLight effects on plantsFrench-language works237,207