Carbohydrate and amino acid composition in phloem sap of <i>Lolium perenne</i> L. before and after defoliation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Carbohydrate and amino acid composition of phloem sap was studied in the grass Lolium perenne L., before and after defoliation. Leaf exudate was collected in a 5 mmol·L1 EDTA solution from cut leaf blades or stubble, and phloem sap was obtained through excised aphid (Rhopalosiphum padi L.) stylets. Results indicate that leaf exudates obtained from leaves devoid of petiole might not be relevant predictors of carbohydrate content of pure phloem sap. Sucrose was the dominating carbohydrate, accounting for 93% of the total soluble sugars in the phloem sap. Myo-inositol, glucose, and fructose were present in trace amounts, while fructans, raffinose, and loliose have never been detected. Predominant amino acid in the phloem sap was glutamine followed by glutamate, aspartate, and serine. Phloem sap component concentration declined during the first hours following defoliation. Sucrose was the main sugar transported in the phloem sap of Lolium perenne, despite the fact that the product of fructan degradation was fructose and not sucrose. The results are discussed in relation with the physiological mechanisms that contribute to plant recovery after defoliation.Key words: fructan, sucrose, loliose, defoliation, phloem sap, amino acids.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".