Carbon allocation during fruiting in Rubus chamaemorus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Rubus chamaemorus (cloudberry) is a herbaceous clonal peatland plant that produces an extensive underground rhizome system with distant ramets. Most of these ramets are non-floral. The main objectives of this study were to determine: (a) if plant growth was source limited in cloudberry; (b) if the non-floral ramets translocated carbon (C) to the fruit; and (c) if there was competition between fruit, leaves and rhizomes for C during fruit development. METHODS: Floral and non-floral ramet activities were monitored during the period of flower and fruit development using three approaches: gas exchange measurements, (14)CO(2) labelling and dry mass accumulation in the different organs. Source and sink activity were manipulated by eliminating leaves or flowers or by reducing rhizome length. KEY RESULTS: Photosynthetic rates were lower in floral than in deflowered ramets. Autoradiographs and (14)C labelling data clearly indicated that fruit is a very strong sink for the floral ramet, whereas non-floral ramets translocated C toward the rhizome but not toward floral ramets. Nevertheless, rhizomes received some C from the floral ramet throughout the fruiting period. Ramets with shorter rhizomes produced smaller leaves and smaller fruits, and defoliated ramets produced very small fruits. CONCLUSIONS: Plant growth appears to be source-limited in cloudberry since a reduction in sink strength did not induce a reduction in photosynthetic activity. Non-floral ramets did not participate directly to fruit development. Developing leaves appear to compete with the developing fruit but the intensity of this competition could vary with the specific timing of the two organs. The rhizome appears to act both as a source but also potentially as a sink during fruit development. Further studies are needed to characterize better the complex role played by the rhizome in fruit C nutrition.
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".