Dry matter content as a measure of dry matter concentration in plants and their parts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary This study compared the predictive ability of dry matter content (DMC, dry mass per fresh mass) of leaves, stems, roots and entire plants in relation to dry matter concentration (D, dry mass per volume of plant organ). Data came from 28 species of field‐collected plants (woody and herbaceous) and 17 species of herbaceous plants grown in hydroponic sand culture. Specific leaf areas were also measured. Dry matter content of the herbaceous plants grown in sand culture varied more between tissue types than did dry matter concentration but the correlation among plant parts was stronger when using DMC. Means and standard errors for DMC (g g −1 ) were 0.212 ± 0.009 (leaves), 0.176 ± 0.012 (support tissues) and 0.170 ± 0.021 (roots); for D (g cm −3 ) the values were 0.158 ± 0.010 (leaves), 0.168 ± 0.017 (support tissues) and 0.153 ± 0.013 (roots). Leaf DMC provided approximate estimates of leaf D ( r = 0.76) for the field‐collected plants but sclerophyllous leaves from shrubs restricted to acidic bogs proved to be outliers. The relationship between these two variables was stronger in the herbaceous species grown in sand culture, especially so for whole plant estimates ( r = 0.91). Dry matter content and dry matter concentration were equally good predictors of specific leaf area.
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) | 0.001 | 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 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".