Maize seed and stem roots differ in response to neighbouring weeds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Afifi M & Swanton C (2011). Maize seed and stem roots differ in response to neighbouring weeds. Weed Research51, 442–450. Summary Light signals such as the red to far‐red ratio (R/FR) reflected from stem and leaf surfaces of neighbouring weeds can trigger a shade avoidance response in maize seedlings, resulting in a reduction in root biomass. In this experiment, we tested the hypothesis that maize roots originating from seed or stem tissue differed in their response to the R/FR ratio reflected from neighbouring weeds. Laboratory experiments were conducted under conditions of non‐limiting resources using perennial ryegrass as a model weed species. The above‐ground reduction in the R/FR ratio reflected from neighbouring weeds delayed the emergence of the root radicle and reduced the root relative growth rate from emergence until the fourth leaf tip stage of maize. At this leaf stage, no effect was observed on root length or surface area of the root radicle or seminal roots. In contrast, crown root length, diameter, surface area and number were all reduced, compared with crown roots grown under weed‐free conditions. These changes accounted for the observed reduction in total root biomass and volume. This is the first study to report that maize roots originating from seed or stem tissue differ in their response to the proximity of neighbouring weeds.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".