The importance of light quality in crop–weed competition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
LiuJG, MahoneyKJ, SikkemaPH & SwantonCJ (2009). The importance of light quality in crop–weed competition.Weed Research49, 217–224. Summary Plant competition is thought to be driven by limiting resources. We propose that plant competition is triggered initially by the red to far‐red light ratio (R:FR) originating from neighbouring plants, followed by a series of complex physiological processes, which exclude direct resource competition. Field experiments were conducted in 2005 and 2006 in which maize (Zea mays) was grown hydroponically. The effect of R:FR signal being reflected from the leaf surface ofAmaranthus retroflexuswas isolated by avoiding direct competition for light, water and nutrients. Results showed that the low R:FR reflected from the leaf surface ofA. retroflexusdid alter the carbon allocation pattern of maize when compared with maize growing free of weeds. Prior to silking, maize grown under low R:FR experienced temporal changes in plant height, persistent changes throughout the sampling period in root and shoot dry weights and rate of leaf appearance, but no changes in leaf area. At silking, low R:FR reduced ear and total plant dry weight. These results support the hypothesis that changes in R:FR acts as an early signal of pending competition by initiating a shade avoidance response. Data from this experiment suggest that once a plant is physiologically triggered into a shade avoidance response, these plants do so at a physiological cost, which may constrain plant development and possibly reduce reproductive fitness.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".