MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099314069 · doi:10.1093/jxb/erf043

Decoupling of light intensity effects on the growth and development of C3 and C4 weed species through sucrose supplementation

2002· article· en· W2099314069 on OpenAlexafffund
Sultan Begna

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Botany · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGrowth and nutrition in plants
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsShadingSucroseShootLight intensityLambsquartersAbutilonBiologyDry matterPhotosynthesisDry weightWeedBotanyHorticultureAgronomyChenopodium

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Light availability has a profound effect on plant growth and development. One of the ways to study the effects of light intensity on plant growth and development without the confounding problem of photosynthate availability is sucrose injection/supplementation. A greenhouse experiment was conducted to evaluate the effects of light levels (0% and 75% shade) and sucrose injection (distilled water or 150 g sucrose l(-1)) on three weed species: redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L., C4), lambsquarters (Chenopodium album L., C3) and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti Medic., C3). The average total sucrose uptake was 7.6 and 5.9 g per plant for 0% and 75% shading, respectively, representing 47% of the average total weed dry weight. Plants injected with sucrose had greater dry weights and shoot-to-root ratios under both light levels. In spite of sucrose supplementation the reduction in dry matter due to shading was greater for roots and reproductive structures than vegetative shoot tissues, indicating light level regulation of morphological changes resulting in changed C allocation that are independent of photosynthate availability. Dry weights of plants injected with sucrose under 75% shading were not different from distilled water-injected unshaded plants. However, both sucrose-injected and control plants, regardless of their photosynthetic pathways, underwent similar changes in allocation of dry matter and morphology due to shading, suggesting that these effects are strictly due to light intensity and not related to photosynthate availability.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.111
Threshold uncertainty score0.110

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Citations35
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental BotanySame topicGrowth and nutrition in plantsFrench-language works237,207