MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2121594268 · doi:10.1139/b03-127

Seasonal differences in plant responses to flooding and anoxia

2003· article· en· W2121594268 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
R. M. M. Crawford

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Botany · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant responses to water stress
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOverwinteringFlooding (psychology)BiologyEnvironmental scienceAerationEconomic shortageEcologyAnaerobic exerciseGrowing seasonPhysiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Strategies for surviving an environmental stress in winter can differ from those that provide protection from the same stress when it occurs in summer. During the growing season, escape mechanisms from stresses tend to prevail, as periods of adversity are generally brief. In winter, adverse environmental conditions have a high probability of persisting for lengthy periods and consequenctly, survival depends on tolerance. Spring is a period of uncertainty as to whether the risk of flooding has passed, and seeds differ markedly in their ability to resume germination if interrupted by re-imposition of winter conditions. When growing plants are flooded in summer, brief periods of accelerated anaerobic metabolism can alleviate energy shortages while improved aeration tissues develop, which then remove the dangers of prolonged anaerobiosis. By contrast, overwintering species, if they are highly tolerant of prolonged anoxia, may down-regulate metabolism when flooded and thus reduce the risk of exhausting carbohydrate supplies. Ventilation of underground organs in winter is still possible but is dependent on specialized mechanisms that can provide a through flow of air from emergent stems to buried or submerged organs. The tree form also presents metabolic and morphological problems for surviving wet conditions at critical seasons.Key words : anoxia, flooding summer, winter stress, plants, crops.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.172 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations100
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of BotanySame topicPlant responses to water stressFrench-language works237,207