Growth temperature affects inflorescence architecture in<i>Arabidopsis thaliana</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plants adjust their growth and development to ensure survival under adverse environmental conditions. Nonoptimal growth temperatures can have a major impact on biomass and crop yield. A detailed phenotypic analysis (number and length of rosette and cauline branches, flowers, and buds) in Arabidopsis thaliana revealed that growth temperatures below (12 and 17 °C) and above (27 and 32 °C) the control 22 °C affect branching and flowering. The elongation of internodes on the main stem and of primary branches at cauline leaves is reduced at lower temperatures and increased at higher temperatures. Similar results are observed in plants treated before or after bolting. Our data therefore indicate that plants that have transitioned to the reproductive stage before treatment are slightly less affected by temperature variations than plants that are in their vegetative stage. Our results also suggest that plants need to reach a maximum height (internodes length) before they begin forming floral meristems and that this “maximum height” is dependent on the growth temperature. Plants grown at 17 °C show a slightly reduced branching, while those at 27 °C show increased branching. This suggests that apical dominance is a temperature-dependent phenomenon. This is, to our knowledge, the first extensive analysis of the effect of temperature on Arabidopsis inflorescence development.
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".