Comparative analysis of hypocotyl development in epiphytic, lignotuber-forming, and terrestrial Vaccinieae (Ericaceae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A comparative analysis of hypocotyl development was undertaken with seedlings of three Vaccinieae (Ericaceae) species ( Macleania pentaptera Hoerold, Macleania rupestris (Kunth) A.C. Sm., and Vaccinium angustifolium Ait.) to determine the developmental basis for enlarged hypocotyls leading to the development of woody tubers (lignotubers) in M. pentaptera and M. rupestris. Differences in hypocotyl development are apparent after the first true leaves are visible in each species. Vascular tissue in M. rupestris and V. angustifolium is composed primarily of axial columns of secondary xylem. Secondary xylem tissues in M. pentaptera remain mostly parenchymatous and form radial columns of cells through numerous periclinal divisions. Furthermore, the secondary xylem of M. pentaptera comprises random networks of interconnected, small xylem elements in comparison with the secondary xylem of M. rupestris and V. angustifolium. These differences in hypocotyl development persist through the first 200 d of hypocotyl development, and ultimately lead to the development of a large lignotuber in M. pentaptera. Given the large amounts of parenchymatous tissue, a secondary xylem of relatively short secondary xylem elements, and the absence of adventitious buds, we propose that the lignotubers of M. pentaptera are used for short term water storage, rather than regeneration.
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".