MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2143413711 · doi:10.21273/hortsci.39.1.65

Shading Affects Morphology, Dry-matter Partitioning, and Photosynthetic Response of Greenhouse-grown `Chardonnay' Grapevines

2004· article· en· W2143413711 on OpenAlexaff
Justine E. Vanden Heuvel, John Proctor, K. Helen Fisher, J. Alan Sullivan

Bibliographic record

VenueHortScience · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicHorticultural and Viticultural Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShadingDry weightDry matterHorticultureBotanyShootBiologyGreenhousePottingPhotosynthesisCompensation pointSpecific leaf areaTranspirationMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In order to gain an understanding of the capacity of severely shaded leaves to be productive in dense canopies, the effects of increased shading on morphology, dry-matter partitioning, and whole-plant net carbon exchange rate (NCER) were investigated on greenhouse-grown Vitis vinifera L. `Chardonnay' grapevines. Vines were subjected to whole-plant shading levels of 0%, 54%, 90%, and 99% of direct sun 3 weeks after potting. Data were collected 8 to 10 weeks after potting. Nonlinear regression was used to investigate the relationship of leaf morphological traits and organ dry weights to increased shading. Leaf size was maintained with increased shading to approximately the 90% shading level, while leaf fresh weight, volume, density, and thickness were immediately reduced with increased shading. Root dry weight was most affected by increased shading, and root to shoot ratio was reduced. When nonlinear regressions were produced for light response curves, light compensation point was reduced by approximately 49% by moderate shading, and 61% by severe shading. Shaded leaves approached the asymptote of the light response curve more quickly, and had reduced dark respiration rates, indicating that the morphological compensation responses by the vine allow shaded leaves to use available light more efficiently. However, the long-term ramifications of reduced root growth in the current year on vines with shaded leaves may be significant.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.715
Threshold uncertainty score0.472

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations23
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHortScienceSame topicHorticultural and Viticultural ResearchFrench-language works237,207