Linking irradiance‐induced changes in pit membrane ultrastructure with xylem vulnerability to cavitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effect of shading on xylem hydraulic traits and xylem anatomy was studied in hybrid poplar (Populus trichocarpa x deltoides, clone H11-11). Hydraulic measurements conducted on stem segments of 3-month-old saplings grown in shaded (SH) or control light (C) conditions indicated that shading resulted in more vulnerable and less efficient xylem. Air is thought to enter vessels through pores in inter-vessel pit membranes, thereby nucleating cavitation. Therefore, we tested if the ultrastructure and/or chemistry of pit membranes differed in SH and C plants. Transmission electron micrographs revealed that pit membranes were thinner in SH, which was paralleled by lower compound middle lamella thickness. Immunolabelling with JIM5 and JIM7 monoclonal antibodies surprisingly indicated that pectic homogalacturonans were not present in the mature pit membrane regardless of the light treatment. Porosity measurements conducted with scanning electron microscopy were significantly affected by the method used for sample dehydration. Drying through a gradual ethanol series seems to be a better alternative to drying directly from a hydrated state for pit membrane observations in poplar. Scanning electron microscopy based estimates of pit membrane porosity probably overestimated real porosity as suggested by the results from the 'rare pit' model.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".