Determination of leaf fresh mass after storage between moist paper towels: constraints and reliability of the method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To ensure comparability among leaf fresh mass measurements it is important to handle the leaves in a standardized manner. In the present work constraints of a commonly used method to achieve full turgor, storage between damp paper towels, were investigated. After overnight rehydration in a saturated atmosphere, the fresh mass of leaves of 14 species was measured, and the leaves were stored between paper towels (two treatments: moist and wet) at 4 degrees C. Their mass was measured after 24, 48, and 72 h. Leaf fresh mass increased during the first 24 h of storage between moist paper towels by an average of 1.8%, between wet towels by 3.3%. Among the species, the increase of leaf fresh mass between moist towels correlated with the species' desiccation propensity, indicating that it was rehydration from water loss during initial handling. On the other hand, between wet towels the fresh mass increase was associated with the species' leaf tissue structure, and it continued to increase beyond 24 h, indicating that the increase was a result of water penetration into the leaf air spaces. It is concluded that storage between moist paper towels results in reliable values of leaf fresh mass, and that desiccated leaves rehydrate well between moist towels. However, care has to be taken to avoid too wet conditions as they may lead to erroneously high fresh mass values, especially in species with large air spaces. Furthermore, exposure to unsaturated atmospheric conditions during handling has to be minimized.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".