Decoupling of light intensity effects on the growth and development of C3 and C4 weed species through sucrose supplementation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".