Clonal variation in morphology, growth, physiology, anatomy and ultrastructure of container-grown white spruce somatic plants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We assessed clonal variation in morphological variables, mineral nutrition, root growth capacity, net photosynthesis, tannin distribution, and cuticle and epicuticular wax features within four families of white spruce (Picea glauca (Moench) Voss). Seeds were collected from four families obtained through controlled crosses among selected genotypes. For each family, plants were produced either from seeds (zygotic) or by somatic embryogenesis (clones). Each family was therefore represented by its zygotic seedlings and three clones. Within a family and under similar growth conditions, several clones differed significantly from the zygotic seedlings in height, root-collar diameter, needle dry mass, branch density, shoot dry mass, root dry mass, and length of needles. Branch density (number of first-order branches per cm height) of zygotic seedlings and clones varied from 0.8 to 1.4 branches cm(-1) and from 0.6 to 1.3 branches cm(-1), respectively. Mean needle length of zygotic seedlings and clones ranged from 11 to 14 mm and from 11 to 17 mm, respectively. For many variables (height, dry mass of new roots, needle dry mass and branch density), differences among clones were significantly greater than differences among zygotic seedlings within a family. Tannins were more abundant in needles of clones than in needles of zygotic seedlings. In some clones, tannins occurred as a ribbon along the central vacuole, whereas in others they appeared as aggregates dispersed in the vacuole. Within a family, N, P and K showed considerable variations in their use efficiency. Interclonal variations were observed in root growth potential and net photosynthesis. Variations in growth and physiology reflect genetically determined differences among clones within a family.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".