MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Relating root structure and anatomy to whole‐plant functioning in 14 herbaceous Mediterranean species

2006· article· en· W2134062845 on OpenAlexaff
Irène Hummel, Denis Vile, Cyrille Violle, Jeremy Devaux, Benoît Ricci, Alain Blanchard, Éric Garnier, Catherine Roumet

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Phytologist · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant nutrient uptake and metabolism
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsXylemHerbaceous plantRelative growth rateBiologyPerennial plantInterspecific competitionBotanySpecific leaf areaHorticultureGrowth ratePhotosynthesisGeometryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigated the relationships between root structure and anatomy and whole-plant functioning in herbaceous species. Fourteen annual and perennial species representative of a Mediterranean old-field succession were grown in monocultures in a common-garden experiment. Whole-plant functioning was assessed by inherent relative growth rate (RGR(max)), measured in standardized conditions, and maximum height (H(max)). Root tissue density (TMD(r)), considered as a major component of root structure, was measured on roots harvested within in-growth cores. Anatomical characteristics were analysed on cross-sectional areas (CSA). TMD(r) was correlated positively with H(max) and negatively with RGR(max). Root CSA explained interspecific variation in H(max) but not that in TMD(r) and RGR(max). Root xylem CSA and xylem proportion in root CSA were positively correlated with TMD(r) and H(max) and negatively with RGR(max). Mean xylem vessel CSA did not account for variations in TMD(r), H(max) and RGR(max). These results suggested that RGR(max) and H(max) are constrained by opposite root structural and anatomical traits, which have potential links with hydraulic conductance, support and longevity.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.347
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations118
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew PhytologistSame topicPlant nutrient uptake and metabolismFrench-language works237,207