MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2124256584 · doi:10.1071/bt04089

Responses to light changes in tropical seedlings of the Brazilian Atlantic rainforest tree species Cecropia glazioui (Cecropiaceae) and Cedrela fissilis (Meliaceae)

2007· article· en· W2124256584 on OpenAlexaff
Maria Terezinha Silveira Paulilo, Sônia Regina Duz, Alexandre Siminski, Marisa Santos

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Journal of Botany · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGrowth and nutrition in plants
Canadian institutionsCanadian Council on International Law
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCecropiaBiologyShade toleranceBotanyRelative growth rateRadiataMeliaceaeHorticultureGrowth rateCanopyVigna

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study analysed the behaviour of Cecropia glazioui Sneth. and Cedrela fissilis Vell. seedlings across a 2–50% full sun light gradient. The morphological adjustments of the seedlings to the different light regimes were interpreted as means of light interception in low light and avoidance of water stress in high light conditions. Cecropia seedlings showed greater trait plasticity at the 2–15% light interval, whereas Cedrela seedlings showed a slight tendency to present greater trait plasticity at the 15–30% light interval than the 2–15% interval. The seedlings of both species did not fully acclimate to decreasing light, showing lower values for the mean relative growth rate (RGR) components, leaf area ratio (LAR) and net assimilation rate (NAR) than seedlings under constant low light, but acclimated to increasing light, showing higher values for RGR components than seedlings under constant high light. The general responses to light gradient in these two species indicate their relative tolerance and ability to grow at low and high light and provide traits used in coping with gap dynamics. The results also indicated that the two species differed in their shade tolerance.

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 score0.017

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.229
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations11
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralian Journal of BotanySame topicGrowth and nutrition in plantsFrench-language works237,207