Phyllotaxis as an example of the symbiosis of mechanical forces and biochemical processes in living tissue
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Phyllotaxis, the arrangement of a plant's phylla (flowers, bracts, stickers) near its shoot apical meristem (SAM), has intrigued natural scientists for centuries. Even today, the reasons for the observed patterns and their special properties, the physical and chemical mechanisms which give rise to strikingly similar configurations in a wide variety of plants, the almost-constant golden divergence angle, the almost constant plastichrone ratio, the choices of parastichy numbers and the prevalence of Fibonacci sequences to which these numbers belong, are at best only partially understood. Our goals in this Addendum are: To give a brief overview of current thinking on possible mechanisms for primordia (the bumps on the plant surface which eventually mature into fully developed structures such as leaves or florets) formation and give a descriptive narrative of the mathematical models which encode various hypotheses.To emphasize the point that patterns, whether they be phyllotactic configurations on plant surfaces or convection cells on the sun's surface, are macroscopic objects whose behaviors are determined more by symmetries of the proposed model and less by microscopic details. Because of this, the identification of observations with the predications of a particular model can only be made with confidence when the match coincides over a range of circumstances and parameters.To discuss some of the key results of the proposed models and, in particular, introduce the prediction of a new and, in principle, measurable invariant in plant phyllotaxis.To introduce a new model of primordia formation which is more in keeping with the pictures and paradigms of Hofmeister,1 Snow & Snow,2 and Douady and Couder3,4 which see primordia as forming in a fairly narrow annular zone surrounding the plant's SAM separating a region of undifferentiated cells from a fully developed patterned state.To consider the challenge of phyllotaxis in the broader context of pattern formation in biological tissue which responds to both mechanical and biochemical processes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".