MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2143751639 · doi:10.1139/b10-007

Juvenile leaves of <i>Rhus glabra</i> have higher photosynthetic thermal tolerance than mature leaves

2010· article· en· W2143751639 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
John L. Snider, John S. Choinski, William Slaton

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Ecology and Taxonomy Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Food and AgricultureUniversity of Central Arkansas
KeywordsJuvenileBiologyPhotosynthesisBotanyHorticultureEnvironmental factorEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have previously shown that juvenile leaves of Rhus glabra L. growing in a field setting were consistently 2–3 °C warmer than mature leaves during periods of high irradiance. An experiment was done to test the hypothesis that these differences in leaf temperature lead to increased photosynthetic temperature tolerance in juvenile leaves when compared with cooler, mature leaves. Significant differences were found between the leaf stages with detached juvenile leaves having a slightly higher T15 (the temperature causing a 15% drop in maximum photochemical efficiency) than mature leaves (43.5 vs. 41.1 °C). Additionally, measurement of the effect of temperature on actual quantum yield (ΦPSII) showed maximum activity at 35 °C for mature leaves, whereas juvenile leaves exhibited a broader temperature response with similar activities between 30 and 40 °C. The 2 °C difference in T15 roughly coincided with observed average differences between juvenile and mature leaf temperature we observed in the field, indicating that higher juvenile leaf temperature is a factor in promoting their enhanced temperature tolerance.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.181 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations13
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicPlant Ecology and Taxonomy StudiesFrench-language works237,207