MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2150414080 · doi:10.1139/b04-117

Carbohydrate and amino acid composition in phloem sap of <i>Lolium perenne</i> L. before and after defoliation

2004· article· en· W2150414080 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Véronique Amiard, Annette Morvan‐Bertrand, Jean‐Bernard Cliquet, Jean‐Pierre Billard, C. Huault, Jonas Sandström, Marie-Pascale Prud'Homme

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Botany · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant nutrient uptake and metabolism
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitut National de la Recherche AgronomiqueSkogs- och Jordbrukets Forskningsråd
KeywordsPhloemFructanSucroseRaffinoseLolium perenneFructoseBiologyExudateCarbohydrateSugarStachyoseBotanyBiochemistryPoaceae

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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·L –1 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 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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.620
Threshold uncertainty score0.918

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.173
Teacher spread0.167 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations42
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of BotanySame topicPlant nutrient uptake and metabolismFrench-language works237,207