A Re-examination of the Root Cortex in Wetland Flowering Plants With Respect to Aerenchyma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: We review literature and present new observations on the differences among three general patterns of aerenchyma origin and their systematic distributions among the flowering plants, and we clarify terminology on root aerenchyma. SCOPE: From our own previous works and some new observations, we have analysed the root cortex in 85 species of 41 families in 21 orders of flowering plants that typically grow in wetlands to determine the characteristic patterns of aerenchyma. FINDINGS: A developmental and structural pattern that we term expansigeny, as manifested by honeycomb aerenchyma, is characteristic of all aquatic basal angiosperms (the Nymphaeales) and basal monocots (the Acorales). Expansigenous aerenchyma develops by expansion of intercellular spaces into lacunae by cell division and cell expansion. Schizogeny and lysigeny, so often characterized in recent reviews as the only patterns of root cortex lacunar formation, are present in most wetland plants, but are clearly not present in the most basal flowering plants. CONCLUSION: We conclude that expansigeny is the basic type of aerenchyma development in roots of flowering plants and that the presence of expansigenous honeycomb aerenchyma in root cortices was fundamental to the success of the earliest flowering plants found in wetland environments.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".