MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2115898968 · doi:10.1071/bt12180

Effects of seed vernalisation and photoperiod on flowering induction in the halophyte Thellungiella halophila

2012· article· en· W2115898968 on OpenAlexaff
Yuhua Guo, Dian Wang, Wenjuan Jia, Jie Song, Jianchao Yang, Baoshan Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Journal of Botany · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Stress Responses and Tolerance
Canadian institutionsBC Research (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyVernalizationphotoperiodismBrassicaceaeBotanyHalophytePerennial plantAbiotic stressAgronomySalinityEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Salt cress, Thellungiella halophila, is a late-flowering, halophytic plant that requires a prolonged period of vernalisation to flower. This poorly defined vernalisation requirement restricts the use of T. halophila as a model plant for the study of salt-stress tolerance. To facilitate research on T. halophila, the present study quantified the effects of seed vernalisation and photoperiod on its flowering. Imbibed seeds of T. halophila responded to a cold treatment (4°C), and flowering was optimal after 30 days of seed vernalisation. A longer vernalisation period shortened the time until the first flower appeared, increased the number of flowers and reduced expression of ThFLC (a repressor of flowering). Plants growing from seed that had been vernalised for 30 days did not flower when daylength was <9 h, and daylengths >9 h promoted flowering. Therefore, like for many plants in this clade of the Brassicaceae, vernalisation requirement and long-day response are features of T. halophila. These results will facilitate the use T. halophila as a model plant for the study of abiotic stress.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.218
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations22
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralian Journal of BotanySame topicPlant Stress Responses and ToleranceFrench-language works237,207