Reiteration in the short lived root-sprouting herb<i>Rorippa palustris</i>: does the origin of buds matter?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Regrowth of injured plants occurs from dormant meristems. Its success is known to be dependent on extrinsic factors, such as the severity of an injury and nutrient availability, although little is known about the effect of intrinsic factors. We conducted a growth-chamber experiment with the short-lived root-sprouting herb Rorippa palustris (L.) Besser, where we evaluated the role of bud origin on plant regrowth after disturbance. In particular, we investigated whether shoots sprouting from either axillary or adventitious buds differ in compensatory growth and architecture. We triggered resprouting from axillary versus adventitious buds by two levels of disturbance: (i) removal of the whole aboveground biomass, with axillary buds on the stem base and adventitious buds on roots left intact; and (ii) removal of whole aboveground biomass including axillary buds on the stem base, and only adventitious buds left intact. Despite the fact that the adventitious buds were larger and contained more leaf primordia than axillary buds at the time of disturbance, the latter preferentially resprouted when both types of buds were present. Both axillary and adventitious shoots compensated for lost aboveground biomass; nevertheless, only axillary shoots compensated for fruit production. Shoot reiteration after injury was only partial in both types of shoot; however, adventitious shoots in differed more in their architectural characteristics than axillary shoots did. We confirmed that the output of plant regeneration after disturbance depends also on intrinsic factors such as the origin of the buds.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".