Changes in the responses to light quality during ontogeny in <i>Chenopodium album</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Morphological shade-avoidance responses have been hypothesized to be a form of adaptive plasticity to improve competition for light; however, little is known about their intraspecific variability and their effect on reproductive fitness. To compare plant responses either at a common age or at a common phenological stage, two experiments were conducted with early- and late-flowering Chenopodium album plants exposed to different red (660 nm) to far red (730 nm) ratios. In the first experiment, plant height and number of leaves were recorded at several times during the vegetative stage, and at the onset of flowering, each plant was harvested and other growth traits were measured. In the second experiment, three destructive harvests were performed across the whole plant cycle. Plant growth and development markedly differed between early- and late-flowering plants in all of the conditions tested. Light treatments significantly affected stem length, total leaf number, total leaf area, and relative allocation to leaf biomass. In all families, the response of stem elongation to light treatments decreased later in the development, while changes in the other plastic responses were mostly due to variations in plant growth. No significant treatment effect was found on relative biomass allocation to reproductive structures. However, individual seed mass significantly differed between certain groups, indicating that light quality can affect reproductive fitness through changes in traits other than fruit or seed set.Key words: Chenopodium album, fitness, intraspecific variability, phenotypic plasticity, red to far red ratio, shade-avoidance responses.
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) | 0.001 | 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".